Submitted by RoaneBooster on November 12, 2008 - 4:46pm.
Hmmm. Interesting when you look at how many counties went for McCain and how many went for Obama. The VAST majority of counties in the entire country went for McCain. The difference is in the population centers. As Artie Johnson would say... "V-e-r-r-r-y Interesting..." Link...
Submitted by RoaneBooster on November 12, 2008 - 6:24pm.
... people IN those counties vote, and based on who votes for whom, counties, just like states, can be said to have been won by X or Y. Is that really too hard to comprehend? Or was that really a rhetorical question, trying to see how really stupid I am?
What point do Ihave to have?
The point is... I found it interesting. That's what I said. You may not find it interesting. If it's of no interest to you, that's cool.
But the fact remains that way more counties in the country went red than blue. That means that the majority of folks in more locations went red than blue. It has imnplications for such issues as concentration of populations and how well the electoral college works or doesn't work.
I can't say for sure, but I have a notion that if these counties had been blue, but the electoral college and population centers went red, you may have more of in interest in it.
It may point to a need for adjustment of something like the electoral college, how it's made up, how it works, or if it should continue to exist.
Submitted by TennesseeValues... on November 12, 2008 - 10:15pm.
That means that the majority of folks in more locations went red than blue.
No. It means the majority of arbitrary political boundaries went red. The majority of people still went blue. If counties had electoral votes I guess you'd be on to something. Otherwise, it's a pointless statistic.
It's equivalent to saying that five different players for UT kicked field goals in the upcoming game against Vanderbilt. While Vanderbilt could only manage three players scoring touchdowns. The fact doesn't change that UT would still lose that hypothetical game by a score of 15-18 (assuming no extra point kicks for Vandy).
Submitted by BrantWW on November 12, 2008 - 10:46pm.
Why it means just one thing - people living in counties dominated by an urban population voted for President-Elect Obama while those in rural counties did not.
RB's report on rural county voting patterns should come as no surprise, the same trend developed in 2004.
Moreover, having lived in Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, and briefly in New York City and Detroit; I speak with authority confered by the School of Hard Knocks, First Hand Experience 101 when I pronounce that city folk just do not think the same as country folk.
On the other hand, that many country folks didn't vote like the city folk may mean that a whole bunch of slickers where bedazzled by a modern-day Elmer Gantry - this time one hailing from Metropolis whose yearning for lawyerin' also gave way to a ministry only this one in politics.
In the end, only one conclusion may be made with absolute certainty - come this January we will have a new President and country folk everywhere will pray for President Obama just like they've pray for each President these past twenty score and twenty years.....
Submitted by WhitesCreek on November 12, 2008 - 7:04pm.
I posted a link earlier that explains this in excruciating detail. The bottom line is that less educated people tend to vote republican. That doesn't speak well for rural education, but there ya go.
Of course the very rich tend to vote R but there are only a few of them comparatively.
Here's the link which shows most of the nation trended blue this year except for the most depressed areas with the worst educational systems:
Submitted by harrimanite on November 12, 2008 - 7:26pm.
Okay, with that "less educated" remark you have my dander up!
Haven't you ever heard the term "educated fools"????? They do exist.
Maybe the voters in the urban areas are more prone to vote for Democrats because they are constantly promised "free rides."
Maybe the voters in the urban areas vote for Democrats because of so many of them are poor, uninformed, unemployed, welfare cases who follow any Pied Piper that will toot his horn their way!
This brings up a disturbing "slip of the tongue" from Sunday's Meet the Press interview with one of Obama's top campaign assistants (Valerie ???). She was born in Iran (does that surprise anyone?) When asked about Obama's plans, she used the term that when he began his "rule"? Maybe that is the term they use in Iran, but in America I thought the word was governing or presidency. Makes one a little apprehensive about things t come!
Submitted by WhitesCreek on November 12, 2008 - 7:31pm.
Maybe you are speculating instead of reading the stats. I wish it weren't true that less educated people bought into the republican message but there it is in red, white, pink, and blue...
Submitted by BrantWW on November 12, 2008 - 8:18pm.
Dang me... how could I be so dense.
WC, like an emerald laser, your wisdom vanquishes the demon ignorance and your words slice the fog of misinformation.
How rude of me to think that people in different parts of the country might have different opinions and values that spill over to and affect their voting preferences.
One simple sentence from you and the scales fell - once blind, I now can see. Allow me to translate and share your statement for those who may have missed your point:
"...most of the nation (meaning enlightened, well-educated, people of taste and distinction) trended blue this year [voted for President-Elect Obama] except for the somer-toothed trailer-trash, ignorant red-neck, drop-outs, and hicks who didn't..."
It is so nice to be appreciated.
As always, under your subtle persuasion and gentle enlightenment I have come to see the light and now understand exactly how you feel about the 57,000,000 Americans who did not vote for President-Elect Obama.
Does this mean that in the great tradition of the modern progressive movement we can blame our low social-economic status and failed educational achievement as the cause of our mistaken votes? (“Honest, it weren't our fault. We was borned ignorant AND poor.”)
If so, dare we hope that a great new liberal program meant to correct our deficiencies at the polls will be initiated sending great sums of monies to rescue the rural wastelands of America. (And just think I imagined that our inner-city neighbors were being particularly jubilant in celebrating their great fortune).
All I can say is sign me up and is the check in the mail?
Thank you.
PS: I hope this post does not disqualify me for the Clemson Blue. ;)
Submitted by WhitesCreek on November 12, 2008 - 8:23pm.
I think you want to make light of this but facts is facts. Lower educated folks voted for republicans this time. The entire country is moving toward progressive candidates except for those with lower educational experiences.
I didn't make this up...I just point this out. Make fun of it if you will.
I renew my call for critical thinking skills as an educational tenet. It doesn't mean that folks will vote R or D, but that the R's and D's that get the votes will have to jump over a higher bar to earn them.
Submitted by harrimanite on November 12, 2008 - 9:19pm.
And just how did your sources come to the conclusion that less educated voters went Republican. I don't remember anywhere that I checked what my education level was when I went to the polls. Did they canvas every voter to see what their education level was? I'm just curious.
Polls can be manipulated and used to press the pollster's point of view just as bad as "verse snatchers" do when quoting the Bible.
In many cases, a college degree only means the parents could afford to keep their child in school four years longer.
Personally, I'd rather be (or deal with) a person with a standard education and a lot of common sense than an educated fool anytime!
You can't teach an educated fool anything new because they think they know all there is to know already!
Submitted by BrantWW on November 12, 2008 - 9:45pm.
Harrimanite,
No offense taken but I am one of those to whom Matthew Arnold spoke when he addressed "sufficiently educated ignorant folk".
I am degreed and I do not think I know it all.
I KNOW I know it all!
Also, you miss WC's point. The question “For whom did you vote?” was all pollsters needed to determine the educational level of those who failed to vote for President-Elect Obama.
That an individual voted for anyone other than Barrack was ample evidence, expost facto, of their ignorance for no self-respecting individual of letters would dream of or could possibly have voted for any other candidate.
----------------------------------------------
PS: Uncle Sam and three simultaneous, part-time jobs put me through UT. To their credit my parents empowered me by rightfully understanding that their job ended the day I turned eighteen. What I did after that date was up to me and out of their control.
Submitted by harrimanite on November 12, 2008 - 10:19pm.
BRAVO Brant. Anyone who has had to work for their education, regardless of the amount (You know, even some high schoolers have to work a part time job to afford to stay in school)deserves credit.
I'm not saying that everyone who has a college degree is an "educated fool," but there are some who use their piece of paper to thumb their noses at the "common man" and presume that it makes them a notch above those who got their extended education through the school of hard knocks!
I just have a hangup when it comes to those who think a degree somehow makes them more "evolved" than others. Book learning aint (oops, isn't) everything.
As far as the election, my point is that just because young first time voters, college kids, and those who believed they would personally benefit from all the promises thrown their way should maybe take off their rose-colored glasses and face the truths of the real world.
Submitted by BrantWW on November 12, 2008 - 9:27pm.
As I said I have lived in Los Angeles on Argyle Street below the Hollywood sign, just off the Sunset Strip where I shared a bungalow with a Soca musician from Belize and his wife.
Thankfully had a Latino roommate when I lived at 333-1/3 Simmons Street in Montebello, CA or I likely would not have made it out of the neighborhood (it was a No Gringos thing).
Shared a flat with a South African from Durbin while living in the “landing zone”* on Rose Ave in Long Beach, Ca. (Had two Swedish roommates, each named Eva, at 116 Park Ave on the beach in Long Beach but that’s a different story.)
Shared a house on PCH (Pacific Coast Highway) in Signal Hill, CA with a crazy fellow from Zimbabwe who would get drunk and drink Chibuku (beer from Harare) out of his feltskins (shoes), and a very uptight Jewish girlfriend who once told me she could never be true friends with someone who wasn't Jewish - go figure.
I lived in Hillside, IL, a suburb of Chicago and for a while lived in a showroom/apartment on the Avenue of Americas in the garment district of New York City...
And if you think that my neighbors and friends in those cities were any better educated, richer, or thought more about whom they voted for than my Tennessee friends you are mistaken.
Besides to generalize and say that Donkeys are better educated than Paciderms flys in the face of logic - everyone knows elephants are smarter that asses. (Sorry couldn't pass that one up).
Beside what can we do to progressivize all these red folk and get them up to snuff?
Ah, but think if we do, won't a one party system be grand!
(By the way how come conservatives are now REDS and liberals BLUE. Weren't commies and socialists once RED and the good guys always TRUE BLUE?)
Say good night, Brant.
*The “Landing Zone” of Long Beach, CA was said to have the greatest concentration of Cambodians in the world living outside of Cambodia.
Submitted by harrimanite on November 12, 2008 - 10:25pm.
Ah, what a varied extended education you must of gotten from such a diversified group of roomates. Things that books and classes could never teach you... Again, I applaud you.
Submitted by eaglelodge on November 13, 2008 - 7:27am.
most people i work with are un-educated, red-neck, drop-outs and a few could even be called "trailer trash". well they all voted McCain, but for the most part it was a vote against a black man that drove them to the polls, which i think confirms Whitescreeks theory. IT IS TIME FOR CHANGE!
Submitted by WhitesCreek on November 13, 2008 - 7:47am.
I want to say something here. I've lived in a trailer and worse. There was a time before I had a formal education and I could easily have dropped out of college with my money situation being so dismal. Some of the smartest and most educated people I know don't have degrees, but they read diversely and think about things.
A lot of my friends and most of my extended family could be labeled red-neck. I love them dearly. I just don't understand how they make decisions and allow other folks to make them fearful enogh to vote against their own better interests.
Submitted by grasshopper on November 12, 2008 - 11:56pm.
Bottom line...dollar for dollar blue states pay into the federal budget more than they receive and red states receive more from the federal budget than they pay in. Red states have a higher rate of obesity and far more single parent homes, among other costly issues. Say what you want, but statistics show blue states carry red states economically. Let's just hope those blue states don't decide to secede from the union. Tennessee needs the support of the blue states.
Submitted by WhitesCreek on November 13, 2008 - 7:15am.
There is demographic data for every voting precinct in America showing the level of education of the voters. Here's Harriman, Kingston, Rockwood Oliver Springs
We are rather low on the education scale...We voted Republican. Taken by itself that means little, except that the lowest educational demographic all across America did the same thing. If there was a single unifying theme on how people voted it was the level of education.
Although as Brant states and demonstrates, you can have a degree and still not be able to understand how to interpret data. (Sorry Brant, the set up was too easy ;>)
Look at the arguments that swayed the election in Tennessee and you realize that they don't actually make sense. They are simply hot button wedge issues with no substance. "Obama might be a Muslim" juxtaposed with "His Christian preacher hates America". Both arguments obviously false, as was the "marxist/socialist/whatever" label. But to analyze the vapidity of an argument you have to be able to read...and you have to be willing to think. Obama ran a completely issue based campaign and never stooped to the level of personal attack and he won decisively.
Submitted by BrantWW on November 13, 2008 - 3:55pm.
WC,
So you think the only reason anyone could possibly have voted for McCain was that they were actually voting AGAINST President-Elect Obama because they believed he was a Muslim, they did not like Rev. Wright, and/or they thought him a Marxist/socialist/whatever.
Great, that's really educated....
So in your mind there is no chance that these "uneducated" people believe in a set of ideals that are not built upon or include government handouts.
Could it be that those uneducated Red State folk hold their values so deeply that they were willing to forgo the promised hand-outs and goodies from the government and voted for the man they felt shared and best represented these values?
Isn't their belief in the greatness of this Country "as is" and in the principles expressed in a strict reading of the Constitution just as valid as your belief that we need change and as your hope that the Nation becomes more socialist.
Personally I am proud that there are still Americans who vote against their self(ish)-interest in favor of what they believe to be in the best interest of the Country they love. (My hope is that even more will do so in 2012.)
I hope that you voted for President-Elect Obama because you thought it to be in the best interest of the Country you love and not just in your personal self-interest.
For someone whose man won you seem very unwilling to move on, to look forward... to the better times promised.
Your candidate, our President-Elect partially ran on a platform of unity and change. Why not try some of that change on yourself and work toward unity, rather than looking for more reasons and ways to put down conservatives and Republicans?
Maybe that's why I tried not to take your comments about educational levels and voting patterns too seriously - unless one wants to continue carping and backbiting there is no point in taking those kind of comments too seriously...
On the other hand if you liberals really are planning to shell out serious cash (it won't be cheap) to enlighten us ignorant folk....
In which case, I repeat...
Bring it on. I need the money and won't turn down any handouts. Sign me up! When will the checks get here!
Submitted by WhitesCreek on November 13, 2008 - 4:44pm.
You are inferring things that I never implied. Obama got a bad rap on the "spread the wealth" bs, that is actually a verbatim McCain quote.
I did not vote for McCain because I frankly don't care for his proposals to gut medicare adn privatize social security, nor do I believe he could actually fulfill the job of President.
I voted for Obama because I concur with the vast majority of his proposals which he laid out in quite a bit of detail on his website. I also believe he can guide us through this mess that we're in as well as anyone one earth.
Submitted by BrantWW on November 13, 2008 - 6:11pm.
If so, I don't want to get into a protracted argument. I would like to continue to take this a bit light-heartedly, after all the election is over....
But you did write:
Look at the arguments that swayed the election in Tennessee and you realize that they don't actually make sense. They are simply hot button wedge issues with no substance. "Obama might be a Muslim" juxtaposed with "His Christian preacher hates America". Both arguments obviously false, as was the "Marxist/socialist/whatever" label. But to analyze the vapidity of an argument you have to be able to read...and you have to be willing to think.
I am not sure what you meant to say but after writing "look at the arguments that swayed the election in Tennessee..." you listed only three possible reasons way people were "swayed" to vote for McCain:
1) They thought President-Elect Obama might be Mulsim,
2) They thought when President-Elect Obama's spiritual leader of twenty years screamed "G_ _ D _ _ _ America" from the pulpit that it reflected poorly on the candidate
3) They felt that President-Elect Obama's proposed policies sounded a lot like Marxist/socialist whatever.
You gave no other possible reason why President-Elect Obama failed to carry Tennessee - except that Tennesseans can't read and won't think.
Finally, I never questioned why you voted for President-Elect Obama. I was attempting to point out that we can have many reasons for voting for a particular candidtate.
Thus, I said that I hoped you voted for President-Elect Obama because you felt he was best for the Nation you love rather than for the self-interest that you have stated the rest of us should have surrendered to rather than voting our conviction that McCain was the better choice.
In other words, if you can vote your convictions why is it that other Tennesseans cannot?
Besides wasn't this a valid question based on your previous post in which you said you could not understand why some of your extended family members failed to vote their "own best-interest" by supporting McCain?
In any case, I did not mean to offend. I was only responding to your post.
Submitted by BrantWW on November 14, 2008 - 4:58pm.
WC,
While I appreciate RoaneVoter's strong defense, I am not sure of its necessity.
I understand that you hold your convictions strongly and pull no punches when you advocate and defend them! To my way of thinking that just makes you a zealot - something I have been accused of being myself.
Like me, you express your views in the strongest terms possible and your certainty of being right leaves little room for self-doubt. Naturally, this comes through in your posts.
With your permission, I will continue "bantering" and poking holes in your arguments – even though you will never admit or even see that I have done so.
In return, I fully expect that you will continue to bash my point of view.
Believe it or not before dismissing your arguments and points of view I actually (if only for an instance) think about what you say.
Indeed, your example has already shown me that I must tone down my rhetoric and find less aggressive ways to express my convictions if I wish to be heard.
Anyway, keep up the good work.
Finally we should respect any man or woman who is unafraid to air their thoughts and ideals, running them up the flagpole for the world to snipe.
Submitted by Roane-Voter on November 14, 2008 - 8:34am.
While I commend your effort Brant you are fighting a losing battle. WC considers himself superior to those who don't agree with him. His high intellect has concluded that anyone who voted against Obama had to do so based on fear. We aren't capable of understanding complex issues so we had to fall back on the most simplistic of reasoning for failing to see Obama as the best choice for our country. Nevermind that Obama's economic policies have been tried and failed time and time again. Nevermind that his idea of judicial reformation of the Constitution is contrary to the principles that our country was founded on. I mean it makes much more sense to beleive that Obama will have success simply because he says he will rather than critically looking at not only his plans and seeing their previous failures but also his complete lack of substantive success in his extremely short political career. Apparently those previously red areas that went blue this time around did so because of some mass influx of intellectuals into those areas. Places like New York, Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit etc. all have turned out intellectuals from their tremendous government schools and they were much better prepared to understand the complexities of this election. Otherwise you'd have to beleive that those voters were possibly just as duped into voting O because of his slick speaking style and sense of historical greatness as the first black President of the United States. That would be voting on emotion and only the red do that. The blue are smart and only vote after careful consideration of the facts. These are complex issues that you and I as redders can't fathom. We are too busy having to remember to breath and such.
I found an pretty good article on intellectuals (at least I hope that is what it is about some of the big words confused me). :)
Submitted by WhitesCreek on November 14, 2008 - 8:48am.
Thomas Sowell is one of the greatest Sophists of modern times. If you get anything at all from my posts, RV, I would hope that it would be the suggestion to develop critical thinking skills.
Being intelligent is an accident of birth. Being Smart takes some effort.
Sowell has a well documented history of just plain lying to prove his point, a common tendency of "conservative" authors.
Submitted by Roane-Voter on November 14, 2008 - 9:46am.
You claim "critical thinking" but it only seems to apply if the conclusion reached is in agreement with your conclusion. Otherwise the person making their point (according to you) is simply regurgitating something they've read and not researching the issue beyond talking points. I could understand your point of view better if there was any room for compromise with you. But as the election wore on it became clear that that was not the case. You bully and put down people who don't agree with you. You took exception to my claiming you were name-calling in a previous post but that is excatly what you do. You just do it the "smart" way by insinuating any difference of opinion with you is the result of ignorance, hate, or downright stupidity. Fancying up your name-calling doesn't make it less so.
You calling someone else a sophist is pretty comical. Hey, isn't that name-calling? But you don't do that!!!
To suggest that "conservative" authors are the only ones who distort facts to make a point is pretty evident of non-critical thinking on your part.
Look, I don't mean to come on here and get into these arguments with you. As I have said I like the site (primarily for the local issues) but I don't see why you have to be so critical of others who simply have a differing opinion. I realize this is your site but I would think you would want it to be an open forum for the bantering of ideas. The critical thinking you claim to so highly value requires the study of issues from all sides yet you berate anyone who see things differently thus stifling the very thing necessary for people to engage in critical thinking.
Maybe I will just stick to reading he local issues and avoid these other discussions.
Submitted by WhitesCreek on November 14, 2008 - 12:00pm.
Actually, RV, "sophist" is only one of the descriptive names I used for Thomas Sowell. The other name that I called Sowell is "liar" and I backed up both of them with a link to a well documented article, unlike the kind that Sowell spews out.
Submitted by randmart on November 13, 2008 - 10:16am.
One could forever argue the intelligence levels of population center voters vs country voters but Obama was elected for one simple reason...the hope for change. Campaigning on change was a no brainer!
Sure, many republicans stayed home and large numbers of minorities turned out. Unfortunately, too many of the voters in this country go to the polls terribly uninformed or so confused by campaigns that deal only in hot button issues that they probably shouldn't be voting at all. After 2 years of political rhetoric even those who remained interested would be hard pressed to clearly define either candidate's platform. Wouldn't it be great if our political campaigns were limited to 3 months and each candidate was alloted the same $ dollar amount?
Continuing to beat the drum about all the RED counties is silly....many of them are virtually unpopulated. Fact is Obama carried 53% of the popular vote 30 States and garnered 365 Electoral Votes.It took far more than the educated elite to acomplish that.
Counties don't vote.
... people IN those counties vote, and based on who votes for whom, counties, just like states, can be said to have been won by X or Y. Is that really too hard to comprehend? Or was that really a rhetorical question, trying to see how really stupid I am?
What point do Ihave to have?
The point is... I found it interesting. That's what I said. You may not find it interesting. If it's of no interest to you, that's cool.
But the fact remains that way more counties in the country went red than blue. That means that the majority of folks in more locations went red than blue. It has imnplications for such issues as concentration of populations and how well the electoral college works or doesn't work.
I can't say for sure, but I have a notion that if these counties had been blue, but the electoral college and population centers went red, you may have more of in interest in it.
It may point to a need for adjustment of something like the electoral college, how it's made up, how it works, or if it should continue to exist.
RB
No. It means the majority of arbitrary political boundaries went red. The majority of people still went blue. If counties had electoral votes I guess you'd be on to something. Otherwise, it's a pointless statistic.
It's equivalent to saying that five different players for UT kicked field goals in the upcoming game against Vanderbilt. While Vanderbilt could only manage three players scoring touchdowns. The fact doesn't change that UT would still lose that hypothetical game by a score of 15-18 (assuming no extra point kicks for Vandy).
Why it means just one thing - people living in counties dominated by an urban population voted for President-Elect Obama while those in rural counties did not.
RB's report on rural county voting patterns should come as no surprise, the same trend developed in 2004.
Moreover, having lived in Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, and briefly in New York City and Detroit; I speak with authority confered by the School of Hard Knocks, First Hand Experience 101 when I pronounce that city folk just do not think the same as country folk.
On the other hand, that many country folks didn't vote like the city folk may mean that a whole bunch of slickers where bedazzled by a modern-day Elmer Gantry - this time one hailing from Metropolis whose yearning for lawyerin' also gave way to a ministry only this one in politics.
In the end, only one conclusion may be made with absolute certainty - come this January we will have a new President and country folk everywhere will pray for President Obama just like they've pray for each President these past twenty score and twenty years.....
I posted a link earlier that explains this in excruciating detail. The bottom line is that less educated people tend to vote republican. That doesn't speak well for rural education, but there ya go.
Of course the very rich tend to vote R but there are only a few of them comparatively.
Here's the link which shows most of the nation trended blue this year except for the most depressed areas with the worst educational systems:
Link...
Okay, with that "less educated" remark you have my dander up!
Haven't you ever heard the term "educated fools"????? They do exist.
Maybe the voters in the urban areas are more prone to vote for Democrats because they are constantly promised "free rides."
Maybe the voters in the urban areas vote for Democrats because of so many of them are poor, uninformed, unemployed, welfare cases who follow any Pied Piper that will toot his horn their way!
This brings up a disturbing "slip of the tongue" from Sunday's Meet the Press interview with one of Obama's top campaign assistants (Valerie ???). She was born in Iran (does that surprise anyone?) When asked about Obama's plans, she used the term that when he began his "rule"? Maybe that is the term they use in Iran, but in America I thought the word was governing or presidency. Makes one a little apprehensive about things t come!
Maybe you are speculating instead of reading the stats. I wish it weren't true that less educated people bought into the republican message but there it is in red, white, pink, and blue...
Didn't a good portion of the very rich vote D this time?
-- OneTahiti
Dang me... how could I be so dense.
WC, like an emerald laser, your wisdom vanquishes the demon ignorance and your words slice the fog of misinformation.
How rude of me to think that people in different parts of the country might have different opinions and values that spill over to and affect their voting preferences.
One simple sentence from you and the scales fell - once blind, I now can see. Allow me to translate and share your statement for those who may have missed your point:
"...most of the nation (meaning enlightened, well-educated, people of taste and distinction) trended blue this year [voted for President-Elect Obama] except for the somer-toothed trailer-trash, ignorant red-neck, drop-outs, and hicks who didn't..."
It is so nice to be appreciated.
As always, under your subtle persuasion and gentle enlightenment I have come to see the light and now understand exactly how you feel about the 57,000,000 Americans who did not vote for President-Elect Obama.
Does this mean that in the great tradition of the modern progressive movement we can blame our low social-economic status and failed educational achievement as the cause of our mistaken votes? (“Honest, it weren't our fault. We was borned ignorant AND poor.”)
If so, dare we hope that a great new liberal program meant to correct our deficiencies at the polls will be initiated sending great sums of monies to rescue the rural wastelands of America. (And just think I imagined that our inner-city neighbors were being particularly jubilant in celebrating their great fortune).
All I can say is sign me up and is the check in the mail?
Thank you.
PS: I hope this post does not disqualify me for the Clemson Blue. ;)
I think you want to make light of this but facts is facts. Lower educated folks voted for republicans this time. The entire country is moving toward progressive candidates except for those with lower educational experiences.
I didn't make this up...I just point this out. Make fun of it if you will.
I renew my call for critical thinking skills as an educational tenet. It doesn't mean that folks will vote R or D, but that the R's and D's that get the votes will have to jump over a higher bar to earn them.
And just how did your sources come to the conclusion that less educated voters went Republican. I don't remember anywhere that I checked what my education level was when I went to the polls. Did they canvas every voter to see what their education level was? I'm just curious.
Polls can be manipulated and used to press the pollster's point of view just as bad as "verse snatchers" do when quoting the Bible.
In many cases, a college degree only means the parents could afford to keep their child in school four years longer.
Personally, I'd rather be (or deal with) a person with a standard education and a lot of common sense than an educated fool anytime!
You can't teach an educated fool anything new because they think they know all there is to know already!
Harrimanite,
No offense taken but I am one of those to whom Matthew Arnold spoke when he addressed "sufficiently educated ignorant folk".
I am degreed and I do not think I know it all.
I KNOW I know it all!
Also, you miss WC's point. The question “For whom did you vote?” was all pollsters needed to determine the educational level of those who failed to vote for President-Elect Obama.
That an individual voted for anyone other than Barrack was ample evidence, expost facto, of their ignorance for no self-respecting individual of letters would dream of or could possibly have voted for any other candidate.
----------------------------------------------
PS: Uncle Sam and three simultaneous, part-time jobs put me through UT. To their credit my parents empowered me by rightfully understanding that their job ended the day I turned eighteen. What I did after that date was up to me and out of their control.
BRAVO Brant. Anyone who has had to work for their education, regardless of the amount (You know, even some high schoolers have to work a part time job to afford to stay in school)deserves credit.
I'm not saying that everyone who has a college degree is an "educated fool," but there are some who use their piece of paper to thumb their noses at the "common man" and presume that it makes them a notch above those who got their extended education through the school of hard knocks!
I just have a hangup when it comes to those who think a degree somehow makes them more "evolved" than others. Book learning aint (oops, isn't) everything.
As far as the election, my point is that just because young first time voters, college kids, and those who believed they would personally benefit from all the promises thrown their way should maybe take off their rose-colored glasses and face the truths of the real world.
As I said I have lived in Los Angeles on Argyle Street below the Hollywood sign, just off the Sunset Strip where I shared a bungalow with a Soca musician from Belize and his wife.
Thankfully had a Latino roommate when I lived at 333-1/3 Simmons Street in Montebello, CA or I likely would not have made it out of the neighborhood (it was a No Gringos thing).
Shared a flat with a South African from Durbin while living in the “landing zone”* on Rose Ave in Long Beach, Ca. (Had two Swedish roommates, each named Eva, at 116 Park Ave on the beach in Long Beach but that’s a different story.)
Shared a house on PCH (Pacific Coast Highway) in Signal Hill, CA with a crazy fellow from Zimbabwe who would get drunk and drink Chibuku (beer from Harare) out of his feltskins (shoes), and a very uptight Jewish girlfriend who once told me she could never be true friends with someone who wasn't Jewish - go figure.
I lived in Hillside, IL, a suburb of Chicago and for a while lived in a showroom/apartment on the Avenue of Americas in the garment district of New York City...
And if you think that my neighbors and friends in those cities were any better educated, richer, or thought more about whom they voted for than my Tennessee friends you are mistaken.
Besides to generalize and say that Donkeys are better educated than Paciderms flys in the face of logic - everyone knows elephants are smarter that asses. (Sorry couldn't pass that one up).
Beside what can we do to progressivize all these red folk and get them up to snuff?
Ah, but think if we do, won't a one party system be grand!
(By the way how come conservatives are now REDS and liberals BLUE. Weren't commies and socialists once RED and the good guys always TRUE BLUE?)
Say good night, Brant.
*The “Landing Zone” of Long Beach, CA was said to have the greatest concentration of Cambodians in the world living outside of Cambodia.
Ah, what a varied extended education you must of gotten from such a diversified group of roomates. Things that books and classes could never teach you... Again, I applaud you.
most people i work with are un-educated, red-neck, drop-outs and a few could even be called "trailer trash". well they all voted McCain, but for the most part it was a vote against a black man that drove them to the polls, which i think confirms Whitescreeks theory. IT IS TIME FOR CHANGE!
I want to say something here. I've lived in a trailer and worse. There was a time before I had a formal education and I could easily have dropped out of college with my money situation being so dismal. Some of the smartest and most educated people I know don't have degrees, but they read diversely and think about things.
A lot of my friends and most of my extended family could be labeled red-neck. I love them dearly. I just don't understand how they make decisions and allow other folks to make them fearful enogh to vote against their own better interests.
Bottom line...dollar for dollar blue states pay into the federal budget more than they receive and red states receive more from the federal budget than they pay in. Red states have a higher rate of obesity and far more single parent homes, among other costly issues. Say what you want, but statistics show blue states carry red states economically. Let's just hope those blue states don't decide to secede from the union. Tennessee needs the support of the blue states.
There is demographic data for every voting precinct in America showing the level of education of the voters. Here's Harriman,
Kingston,
Rockwood
Oliver Springs
We are rather low on the education scale...We voted Republican. Taken by itself that means little, except that the lowest educational demographic all across America did the same thing. If there was a single unifying theme on how people voted it was the level of education.
Although as Brant states and demonstrates, you can have a degree and still not be able to understand how to interpret data. (Sorry Brant, the set up was too easy ;>)
Look at the arguments that swayed the election in Tennessee and you realize that they don't actually make sense. They are simply hot button wedge issues with no substance. "Obama might be a Muslim" juxtaposed with "His Christian preacher hates America". Both arguments obviously false, as was the "marxist/socialist/whatever" label. But to analyze the vapidity of an argument you have to be able to read...and you have to be willing to think. Obama ran a completely issue based campaign and never stooped to the level of personal attack and he won decisively.
WC,
So you think the only reason anyone could possibly have voted for McCain was that they were actually voting AGAINST President-Elect Obama because they believed he was a Muslim, they did not like Rev. Wright, and/or they thought him a Marxist/socialist/whatever.
Great, that's really educated....
So in your mind there is no chance that these "uneducated" people believe in a set of ideals that are not built upon or include government handouts.
Could it be that those uneducated Red State folk hold their values so deeply that they were willing to forgo the promised hand-outs and goodies from the government and voted for the man they felt shared and best represented these values?
Isn't their belief in the greatness of this Country "as is" and in the principles expressed in a strict reading of the Constitution just as valid as your belief that we need change and as your hope that the Nation becomes more socialist.
Personally I am proud that there are still Americans who vote against their self(ish)-interest in favor of what they believe to be in the best interest of the Country they love. (My hope is that even more will do so in 2012.)
I hope that you voted for President-Elect Obama because you thought it to be in the best interest of the Country you love and not just in your personal self-interest.
For someone whose man won you seem very unwilling to move on, to look forward... to the better times promised.
Your candidate, our President-Elect partially ran on a platform of unity and change. Why not try some of that change on yourself and work toward unity, rather than looking for more reasons and ways to put down conservatives and Republicans?
Maybe that's why I tried not to take your comments about educational levels and voting patterns too seriously - unless one wants to continue carping and backbiting there is no point in taking those kind of comments too seriously...
On the other hand if you liberals really are planning to shell out serious cash (it won't be cheap) to enlighten us ignorant folk....
In which case, I repeat...
Bring it on. I need the money and won't turn down any handouts. Sign me up! When will the checks get here!
You are inferring things that I never implied. Obama got a bad rap on the "spread the wealth" bs, that is actually a verbatim McCain quote.
I did not vote for McCain because I frankly don't care for his proposals to gut medicare adn privatize social security, nor do I believe he could actually fulfill the job of President.
I voted for Obama because I concur with the vast majority of his proposals which he laid out in quite a bit of detail on his website. I also believe he can guide us through this mess that we're in as well as anyone one earth.
If so, I don't want to get into a protracted argument. I would like to continue to take this a bit light-heartedly, after all the election is over....
But you did write:
Look at the arguments that swayed the election in Tennessee and you realize that they don't actually make sense. They are simply hot button wedge issues with no substance. "Obama might be a Muslim" juxtaposed with "His Christian preacher hates America". Both arguments obviously false, as was the "Marxist/socialist/whatever" label. But to analyze the vapidity of an argument you have to be able to read...and you have to be willing to think.
I am not sure what you meant to say but after writing "look at the arguments that swayed the election in Tennessee..." you listed only three possible reasons way people were "swayed" to vote for McCain:
1) They thought President-Elect Obama might be Mulsim,
2) They thought when President-Elect Obama's spiritual leader of twenty years screamed "G_ _ D _ _ _ America" from the pulpit that it reflected poorly on the candidate
3) They felt that President-Elect Obama's proposed policies sounded a lot like Marxist/socialist whatever.
You gave no other possible reason why President-Elect Obama failed to carry Tennessee - except that Tennesseans can't read and won't think.
Finally, I never questioned why you voted for President-Elect Obama. I was attempting to point out that we can have many reasons for voting for a particular candidtate.
Thus, I said that I hoped you voted for President-Elect Obama because you felt he was best for the Nation you love rather than for the self-interest that you have stated the rest of us should have surrendered to rather than voting our conviction that McCain was the better choice.
In other words, if you can vote your convictions why is it that other Tennesseans cannot?
Besides wasn't this a valid question based on your previous post in which you said you could not understand why some of your extended family members failed to vote their "own best-interest" by supporting McCain?
In any case, I did not mean to offend. I was only responding to your post.
You're right, Brant, I did mean you. I listed the three most often given reasons for voting against Obama in TN exit polls.
I was in a hurry headed out the door so I apologize for my lack of clarity on that post. I was objecting to your inference, using the word "only".
WC,
While I appreciate RoaneVoter's strong defense, I am not sure of its necessity.
I understand that you hold your convictions strongly and pull no punches when you advocate and defend them! To my way of thinking that just makes you a zealot - something I have been accused of being myself.
Like me, you express your views in the strongest terms possible and your certainty of being right leaves little room for self-doubt. Naturally, this comes through in your posts.
With your permission, I will continue "bantering" and poking holes in your arguments – even though you will never admit or even see that I have done so.
In return, I fully expect that you will continue to bash my point of view.
Believe it or not before dismissing your arguments and points of view I actually (if only for an instance) think about what you say.
Indeed, your example has already shown me that I must tone down my rhetoric and find less aggressive ways to express my convictions if I wish to be heard.
Anyway, keep up the good work.
Finally we should respect any man or woman who is unafraid to air their thoughts and ideals, running them up the flagpole for the world to snipe.
While I commend your effort Brant you are fighting a losing battle. WC considers himself superior to those who don't agree with him. His high intellect has concluded that anyone who voted against Obama had to do so based on fear. We aren't capable of understanding complex issues so we had to fall back on the most simplistic of reasoning for failing to see Obama as the best choice for our country. Nevermind that Obama's economic policies have been tried and failed time and time again. Nevermind that his idea of judicial reformation of the Constitution is contrary to the principles that our country was founded on. I mean it makes much more sense to beleive that Obama will have success simply because he says he will rather than critically looking at not only his plans and seeing their previous failures but also his complete lack of substantive success in his extremely short political career. Apparently those previously red areas that went blue this time around did so because of some mass influx of intellectuals into those areas. Places like New York, Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit etc. all have turned out intellectuals from their tremendous government schools and they were much better prepared to understand the complexities of this election. Otherwise you'd have to beleive that those voters were possibly just as duped into voting O because of his slick speaking style and sense of historical greatness as the first black President of the United States. That would be voting on emotion and only the red do that. The blue are smart and only vote after careful consideration of the facts. These are complex issues that you and I as redders can't fathom. We are too busy having to remember to breath and such.
I found an pretty good article on intellectuals (at least I hope that is what it is about some of the big words confused me). :)
Link...
Thomas Sowell is one of the greatest Sophists of modern times. If you get anything at all from my posts, RV, I would hope that it would be the suggestion to develop critical thinking skills.
Being intelligent is an accident of birth. Being Smart takes some effort.
Sowell has a well documented history of just plain lying to prove his point, a common tendency of "conservative" authors.
Link...
You claim "critical thinking" but it only seems to apply if the conclusion reached is in agreement with your conclusion. Otherwise the person making their point (according to you) is simply regurgitating something they've read and not researching the issue beyond talking points. I could understand your point of view better if there was any room for compromise with you. But as the election wore on it became clear that that was not the case. You bully and put down people who don't agree with you. You took exception to my claiming you were name-calling in a previous post but that is excatly what you do. You just do it the "smart" way by insinuating any difference of opinion with you is the result of ignorance, hate, or downright stupidity. Fancying up your name-calling doesn't make it less so.
You calling someone else a sophist is pretty comical. Hey, isn't that name-calling? But you don't do that!!!
To suggest that "conservative" authors are the only ones who distort facts to make a point is pretty evident of non-critical thinking on your part.
Look, I don't mean to come on here and get into these arguments with you. As I have said I like the site (primarily for the local issues) but I don't see why you have to be so critical of others who simply have a differing opinion. I realize this is your site but I would think you would want it to be an open forum for the bantering of ideas. The critical thinking you claim to so highly value requires the study of issues from all sides yet you berate anyone who see things differently thus stifling the very thing necessary for people to engage in critical thinking.
Maybe I will just stick to reading he local issues and avoid these other discussions.
Actually, RV, "sophist" is only one of the descriptive names I used for Thomas Sowell. The other name that I called Sowell is "liar" and I backed up both of them with a link to a well documented article, unlike the kind that Sowell spews out.
One could forever argue the intelligence levels of population center voters vs country voters but Obama was elected for one simple reason...the hope for change. Campaigning on change was a no brainer!
Sure, many republicans stayed home and large numbers of minorities turned out. Unfortunately, too many of the voters in this country go to the polls terribly uninformed or so confused by campaigns that deal only in hot button issues that they probably shouldn't be voting at all. After 2 years of political rhetoric even those who remained interested would be hard pressed to clearly define either candidate's platform. Wouldn't it be great if our political campaigns were limited to 3 months and each candidate was alloted the same $ dollar amount?
Continuing to beat the drum about all the RED counties is silly....many of them are virtually unpopulated. Fact is Obama carried 53% of the popular vote 30 States and garnered 365 Electoral Votes.It took far more than the educated elite to acomplish that.
AMEN, AMEN, AMEN! I agree 100% with your post.