[Dems2008] Mystifying debate on demographics

• Some of the thought processes displayed here are frightening.
• Let me be clear:   Lots and lots of less educated, and whites, and Latinos, and women, and well-educated vote for Obama
• Lots and lots of well-educated, and whites, and Latinos, and well-educated vote for Clinton
• Lots and lots of well-educated, and whites, and Latinos, and well-educated vote for Clinton
• Lots of women (less and well-educated) vote for Obama
• Lots of women (less and well-educated) vote for Clinton
• One's choice between the two does not necessarily reflect gender, race, level of education, or national origin.
• My only point (MY ONLY POINT) about level of education is that it is EMPIRICALLY the case that Clinton has done better among less-educated voters and those earning less than $50,000
• Adjusted for inflation, I have had years in the past when I made less than $50,000, and years when I was less educated than currently.
• Anyone politically savvy, or intent on constructing the most-effective campaign for his or her candidate will pay attention to how particular demographic blocks are voting
• If I say that 80-90% of African Americans are voting for Obama, that is not a put-down on AA's; it is rather an observation about how one demographic group has been breaking
• So, where or how anyone gets a notion that I am dissing less-educated when I say that they have tended to vote for Clinton is beyond me, and beyond reason.
• As I said last night, the mere fact that less-educated or white women over 60 have tended to vote for Clinton is NOT therefore also to say that anyone voting for Clinton is a white woman over 60 who is less-educated.
• CAN we stay on the merits, please?   without the paranoia?

 

__._,_.___

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___