(Link found on sullivan's blog.)

so dumb white retards are keeping Clinton in the race.

That's the technical term, yes.

Really I don't have a problem with her staying in. My problem is with the way she's conducted the campaign. If she wants to go all the way to the convention and try her luck, go for it. But this circular firing squad business and Rove tactics is another matter.

You're cute, Rev.

Anyways, I don't get these stats, and don't trust where they came from. On average, states like Wyoming and Alabama have a super low per-avergae college graduation rate, and places like Massachusettes have a really high one. So these aren't exactly national averages, because anyone sweeping the deep south and the agricultural belt is going to have, technically, a very low looking stat for number of college grads voting for him/her.

That, and people seem to think that his college followers are actually college grads, which they are not. On a survey, they would have had to fill out that their highest actual level of education is a completed high school diploma.

So, these stats are just really weird, and I would want to see what they are based off of.

That being said, I have a completely different interpretation of this election than anyone else here, I've noticed. And I keep it to myself, but it has nothing to do with race, sex, of income, the way I see it.

Anywho, have fun with your tree. I'm gonna take my dumb "white" bum and go give Hillary 25 of my hard earned bucks because of this thread alone. Toodles.

The diagram does not count popular vote, it counts counties. Rural counties are vastly overrepresented. There's nothing statistical about the tree, strictly defined; it's obviously for poking fun at hillbillies.

Well, you know how many rural counties there are in the Deep South, Alaska, the Appalchians, and the Mid-NorthWest? Its BS even for a tree that is trying to make fun of rural America.

Not that many, but look at this delectable example of where Clinton racks up her margins of hillbilly-county infamy:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primar ... /state/#MO

I bet if it made fun of Bush it would be A OK.

Making fun of anybody is A-ok. Political correctness ends at my anus. I mean, Clinton should be glad Africa can't vote in the primaries.

It's nothing to take personally. I wish Edwards was the nominee and "dumb whites" (or at least less educated, less well off whites) were his main voting block.

Ah, Hito, another sig-worthy remark!

Heh, yeah, I'm not a big fan of how politically correct we have become either. I was just pointing out some glaring hypocrisy.

It's a well known fact that liberals can't take their own medicine, because:

Poor Gore, no matter how many trees he hugs he'll never live that one down.

Not to someone who likes Bush, and I would be saying that knowing I'm pissing off Bush supporters and willing to take the consequences. Also, that's still very different than PCness, which the discussion of in this thread irritates me. PCness is about unconscious language that propagates historic stereotypes and social orders. Its not that same thing as having a fight about political sides, which I am fine with.

IF Archie, Hito, and Rev want to call Hillary supporters dumb, white, hillibillies, they are doing it full well knowing its going to piss people off, and they should be willing to take the consequences. They seem fine with it.

But the PCness jokes? You guys sound like an empowered gentleman's club in here. I, for one, don't really mind PC-ness, and am damn happy there are some words that have been excised from unconscious language. Its not saying you can't use them, just that you are conscious when you do, know certain words upset entire communities, and that these words actually have a significant implication grounded in the specific history of this country. If you do use them, you're responsible for, and willingly taking on the implications of, that language.

What's the big deal? Its no skin off my back if I'm informed by someone that a word I use deeply offended someone and I didn't realize it. I'm not talking just being pissy, I'm talking language with deep cultural and historical implications. I would have an incredibly restricted vocabulary (but, you know, I voted for Hillary and didn't even pass my GED, so that makes sense) if I couldn't find a good way of saying what I am trying to say without use of that word. I might even continue to use that word if I really believe in it, and/or believe in the offense it enforces, but at least I would know it, and would be taking responsibility for it instead of whining from my empowered vantage point that other people are being too sensitive.

PCness is fine. It doesn't mean you can't use certain language, only that if you do, you should be conscious of it and be willing to assume responsibility for propagating certain language/idea relationships.

Dolce,

I was simply commenting on the fact that it's ironic that you were up in arms over the unfairness of the way your candidate was being portrayed, when if the same were done to Bush, you wouldn't bat an eyelash.

And as someone who voted for Bush, I can say: neither would I. That type of silliness just doesn't bother me, I've developed quite a tolerance over the past 4 years.

I know, I'd leave that to the Bush supporters! Everyone is allowed to defend and get upset in the name of their candidate of preference. And anyone who disses should be willing to take the backlash. You don't get a freebie for posting that tree, is all that I am saying.

And yeah, apologies if I conflated what you said with the PC discourse. I meant to keep them seperate, but might not have been successful. I'm fine with people making fun of/defending their candidates. I am not fine with people who make fun of PCness.

And you're totally right, everyone does have the right. Though, I personally only bother if I think people are making faulty decisions based on misleading data. Can't bother getting all riled up over ever "decision tree," otherwise you end up like this:

I'm an insensitive prick. We constitute a statistically significant portion of the American population electorate.

can't we all just agree that the only people who vote for clinton are dumb white people?

Every candidate is supported by a huge number of dumb people.

Having worked on a campaign, I can say, with full optimism, that the electorate is half intelligent.

The chart was created by Amanda Cox of the New York Times, based on election results this primary season and census data, as well as some information about past election results in the few parts of the chart that called for that. It's not something cooked up by Cracked or The Onion. It was a serious chart, and I posted it as a serous post, thinking it might spur interesting discussion.

Posting it wasn't intended as a "zing!" to Clinton supporters. But yes my seconding the white retard joke was a "zing!", a pretty harmless one if you ask me, just being silly.

Over explaining kills the fun but I guess it had to be done this time.

I can't seem to copy this to use in another board. Can you post the actual link?

Groucho, try this: http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/7435 ... 93tpg6.jpg