Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

An education gap among white voters

Today, Behind the Numbers shows the sizable "education gap" in Democratic voting patterns.

In Post-ABC national polling, Clinton consistently scored better among voters without college degrees than among those with more education, and the pattern has held firm in primaries across the country. In fact, education has been a key divider among white voters in a contest marked by an evident racial divide.

In each of the states where the Post subscribed to exit polls (and voters were asked about their level of education), Clinton did better among non-college than college-educated white voters. She also outpaced Obama among non-college whites in all 14 of these states, but beat him by more than a single percentage point among college graduates in only five.

In Virginia, where 52 percent of white voters opted for Obama, the Illinois senator did 18 percentage points better than Clinton among those with college degrees, but lost by 15 points among those less formal education.

Dividing white voters by income shows a similar pattern in Virginia and elsewhere, pointing to Clinton's much-discussed advantage among "downscale" voters. For more, see the thread on

We'll take a deeper look at the reasons for these differences in a future Behind the Numbers post, but digging further into the Virginia data, one difference jumped out. While about half of whites regardless of education level said the nation is "definitely" ready for a woman president, just a third of whites without college degrees were that sure the country is prepared for a black president and they were almost twice as likely as college educated whites to say the nation is not ready for an African American chief executive.

White non-college
             %Total  Clinton  Obama  Clin.-Ob.
New Hampshire  44      44      35       9
South Carolina 23      38      16      22
Florida        35      56      15      41
Arizona        34      59      33      26
California     23      50      37      13
Georgia        16      64      35      29
Illinois       28      50      46       4
Massachusetts  32      68      29      39
Missouri       48      63      33      30
New Jersey     24      73      24      49
New York       23      65      31      34
Tennessee      44      76      17      59
Maryland       16      61      32      29
Virginia       23      57      42      15
White college grad or more
             %Total  Clinton  Obama  Clin.-Ob.
New Hampshire  51      35      37      -2
South Carolina 21      33      32       1
Florida        32      51      33      18
Arizona        35      46      45       1
California     29      42      51      -9
Georgia        27      48      48       0
Illinois       29      32      67     -35
Massachusetts  53      52      46       6
Missouri       27      35      61     -26
New Jersey     35      60      38      22
New York       48      57      40      17
Tennessee      23      51      42       9
Maryland       37      48      47       1
Virginia       39      40      58     -18

By Jon Cohen  |  February 15, 2008; 1:44 PM ET
Categories:  Exit polls  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Democratic Demographics: Past and Future
Next: March Madness


is that a good thing for Clinton?

Posted by: JC | February 15, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

I'm so glad someone finally did a study on this! Clinton speaks of policies that sound good but have no substance, and sadly it takes an educated person to see behind her scams. Hopefully there are more educated people than uneducated that choose to vote, sadly I don't think so because look who is in office now...

Posted by: JB | February 15, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Look, as an apparently "downscale" person mentioned in this article, let me suggest that Clinton's support among those without college degrees (or pursuing one currently in my case)might be because she has posed specific policy measures for helping all Americans afford college. Something not such a concern for those already with college degrees, obviously.

As a "downscale" human being I have lived my entire life among many different races, and because of this "class issues" are much more real and insurmountable than race issues. I would gladly support Obama if he seemed to have any specific policies addressing "downscale" people like myself who work too hard to make it to the caucuses.

Mrs. Clinton has specific policies for working Americans. Obama offers a cult of personality.

Posted by: some guy | February 15, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

"While about half of whites regardless of education level said the nation is "definitely" ready for a woman president, just a third of whites without college degrees were that sure the country is prepared for a black president and they were almost twice as likely as college educated whites to say the nation is not ready for an African American chief executive."

This survey provides the single best documented indication of the impact of college education on people's attitudes toward diversity and race. College exposes students to a diverse and rich environment in which they encounter people of many ethnic, racial, language, and economic backgrounds. White people in particular benefit enormously from the mind-expanding experiences involved in going to college. College-educated people are not smarter or less inherently racist than those who don't get a chance to go to college. But their experiences in college do make an enormous difference in how they perceive the world and act in it.

Posted by: dee | February 15, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

This blog post is criminally misleading.

Why don't you point out that Obama's skin color had NOTHING to do with this gap?

In a close 2000 primary in NH, Al Gore did 13 points better among those w/o a college education. Bradley did 9 points better among those with a college education.

Who is pushing this meme, and why?

Posted by: Jed | February 15, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

They finally are beginning to crunch the numbers on Obama's pie-in-the-sky "change" schemes. It would conservatively cost the country 857 Billion dollars to fund his tax and spend nitwittery. And Hillary is probably just as bad. My God, what has happened to the Democratic Party - it looks like Berkeley gone bad.

Posted by: muskrat | February 15, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

the problem with high income white is they do not need to fight with blacks in the isles of Walmart, they care less about minimum wage, they just say they care about "change" what change, Bill Clinton years definitely have a very good memory for low income folks.

this is such a simple thing

all the media folks fail to see this because they never need to go to Walmart or waiting for food stamp in a grocery store

Posted by: ruleitang | February 15, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

maybe because most Illegal Aliens don't go to College .

Posted by: willy | February 15, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Oh Please,

Bush did not win either time because uneducated idiots voted for him. He won the first time because he was appointed by highly educated idiots and the second time because he was running against a highly educated idiot.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 15, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

I like Dee's post at 5:14pm, would tend to agree about exposure and racism, that it can work inversely also with whites being exposed to more blacks and immigrants, not only in college, but, also via media, internet (you tube and facebook), sports, entertainment, cuisine, travel, whatever means, etc. and basing more positive opinions through these experiences.

***However, One important policy matter that this article does not mention is Hillary Clinton's UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE for EVERY AMERICAN proposal, its quite possible she is getting votes from less educated whites because as statistics always claim that those without college education over time earn less and do not get the same type of benefits as those that are more "qualified"/educated. Therefore, one can also conclude that Hillary's universal health care plan proposal "similar to what congress enjoys" is causing this statistical difference with your so called "downscale" voters who may want this benefit.***

Posted by: cheersdk | February 15, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

There will always be gaps between groups. I think this election cycle is too fluid to make any definite observations of substance. The electorate is not the same across the country. The candidates messages are different. What Clinton said is one state is not what she said in anothe state. This is just analysis that reminds me of the saying, "garbage in equals garbage out" from years ago.

Posted by: Armyvet | February 15, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

You only have to read the posts made by Clintonistas to understand there is an education gap.

They ought to embrace Obama just for promising to bring more broadband to the country. There's every chance SpellCheck might come in the package, something every Clintonista desperately needs.

Posted by: filmex | February 15, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Obviously education is better than ignorance. The only way uneducated people can better themsleves is through education.
It is not enough for someone to be there for you when you are not getting the right education to improve yourself.

Obama was poor too. It is education that has helped him. That is the key difference.

With education you will understand that the same Hillary who was "there for you" was busy in collusion with the Wal-Marts of these world shipping jobs to China, India, etc. If that is being for you then you need some serious education. Remember
NFTA has benefit Asian countries, not America. The low minimum wage paying jobs with no benefits is what hillary was negotiating with Wal-Mart behind closed.
If that is being for you the uneducated then you need some serious education.
The Clintons are liars.

Wake up people. Get educated.

Posted by: Rogers | February 15, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Isn't there something more worthwhile the Post could be doing than exacerbating the social/cultural rift between those with formal educations and those without? As if the Dems don't lose enough working people to the Republicans on "social issues," now someone thinks it's a good idea to either a)insult the majority of the population or b)throw oil on the fire of anti-intellectualism that is rampant in this country to begin with. Good show . . .

Posted by: Wiseman | February 15, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Hillary should tout that she represents the "downscale," and wear it with pride. More educated does not mean more intelligent. It generally just means more money.

Posted by: jaywpat | February 15, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Obama's chance to help the general Black population may disappoint them because he is Black. Ethnic difference makes it difficult to help your own ethnic group in a White nation as our own. I belong to a ethnic group other than Black and individually may be favorite but hardly ever is my ethnic group will be treated in the same manner.

Posted by: harry | February 15, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

I like Dee's post at 5:14pm, would tend to agree about exposure and racism, that it can work inversely also with whites being exposed to more blacks and immigrants, not only in college, but, also via media, internet (you tube and facebook), sports, entertainment, cuisine, travel, whatever means, etc. and basing more positive opinions through these experiences.

***However, One important policy matter that this article does not mention is Senator Hillary Clinton's UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE for EVERY AMERICAN proposal. It's quite possible that H.C. is getting votes from less educated whites because of that well known statistic that: 'those without college education over time earn less and do not get the same type of benefits as those that are more "qualified"/educated.'

Therefore, one can also conclude that Hillary's universal health care plan proposal "similar to what congress enjoys" is causing this statistical difference with your so called "downscale" voters who may be voting for this benefit over race or gender.***

Posted by: cheersdk | February 15, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Has anyone yet figured out that one reason so many Americans like Hillary Clinton is that their personal experiences in making it in a demanding world tell them she is by far the better qualified candidate? Well, yes, I have figured that out. And
I did it despite all that education a series of professors pumped into me over the years.

Posted by: wes pedersen | February 15, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who can parse Clinton's slogan of the week, knows that it is mostly b.s.

This week we have this False Hope version 2.0 about how "nice speeches aren't the same as getting things done" -- or something along those lines.

But once again -- any careful look at the ACTUAL records doesn't support her claim that she is more a doer than a talker (didn't Bush have some other slogan along these lines?)

As first lady her single achievement was working with Ted Kennedy to get S-CHIP passed. Health care reform was a disaster. The firings at the travel office were a PR disaster.

As a Senator her career has been at best undistinguished -- with some really boneheaded votes along they way (bankruptcy reform 2001 which she voted for and hoped wouldn't pass; the 2002 AUMF; Kyl-Lieberman; the vote AGAINST the Levin amendment on the 2002 AUMF).

People say she has lead -- but where? Doing what?

When she was on that Wal-Mart board she could have fought for unions, instead she remained silent. Almost two decades later she could have asked tough questions of the Bush administration's Iraq War effort -- she didn't even bother to read the NIE.

We even need look no further than her 2006 Senate campaign where she hired political staff who burned through $37 million in a re-election effort against some no-name GOP candidate in a state that has been leaning Democratic for years; or the way that her people have burned through money this election cycle using two planes to fly around the country (a practice that they stopped doing just about 3 weeks ago when money got tight). We could look at the millions of dollars thrown away on consultants, and the late awakening to the power of small donors (a lesson that a lot of candidate's wised up to after 2004).

A good education allows a person to parse a candidates reasoning and look at his or her record on its merits.

The disconnect would be even more pronounced if this study looked at the disparity in support for voters with advanced degrees.

Posted by: JP2 | February 15, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Assuming for the sake of argument that it was true that Clinton is a better presidential canditate than Obama, with better policies, etc. etc. ....


You don't need a college degree to figure that out.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 15, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

I am amazed that college educated people are still Democrats.

Posted by: John425 | February 15, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Most likely if this poll/survey/wild-ass-quess has any meaning, it shows that the people on the lower end of the education and income scale do not have the foggiest idea of what Hillary is proposing and don't give a rat's patoot what it costs because all they hear from Hillary is the beloved..." Take from those based on their ability to produce and Give to those with their ability to need"
Beautiful theme for a country...check with the survivors of the fabulous USSR to see how it works..

Posted by: roneida | February 15, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Most likely these statistics are explained simply by the forms of media available to the various groups who have been dissected according to level of education. The more highly educated will be plugged into cable and the internet while those with a high school degree or less will understandably lag in the degree to which they have been introduced to Obama. As the word gets out, most voting groups are migrating from the well-known candidates (the Clintons) to the less well-known but superior candidate (Obama). So yes, Obama's task is to **educate** the voter as to who he is and what he stands for. Once voters learn about him, he becomes their first choice no matter which demographic group we are talking about.

Posted by: Felipe Mendez | February 15, 2008 6:32 PM | Report abuse

To whomever wrote: Assuming for the sake of argument that it was true that Clinton is a better presidential canditate than Obama, with better policies, etc. etc. ....


You don't need a college degree to figure that out"

Actually, Clinton does has a better chance to beat him in the general election by winning in the states the Dems will need to win the general election: MO, OH, FL and Penn, and precisely for the reasons the original article referred to: the kinds of "downscale" voters who are registered Dems and who vote and live there. Quick case in point: in MO, a bellweather state: Obama only won four of over 100 counties--those of St. Louis and KC, and their immediate suburbs, but none in the heart of the state, which is a mirror of most of America. By sharp contrast, Clinton won those counties and won them bigger than Obama won the urban votes. Moreover, she outdrew McCain voters in those same counties for the Reps primaries. As such, she can in fact win the contested states and thus the election, whereas Obama cannot. The lesson here is that despite all the upscale and educated (white) support for Obama, those folks have yet to use their eduction to figure out he cannot win the general election (by the way I am one of those educated white voters, but I voted for Hillary--you go girl!)

Posted by: kdogdem | February 15, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

I'm in the high education category (the highest one can get) and I support Clinton and I can read the tables posted above.

The 2nd table shows Obama does have an edge over Clinton among the Whites with higher education. But it's just an edge, far from overwhelming. And to use it to say people from this group GENERALLY supports Obama is false, not to mention when "GENERALLY" is being omitted.

What I favor Clinton over Obama is that while Clinton often talks about her policies, Obama chants slogans without much substance. For example, when he frequently speaks of change to the politics, I have not heard he articulate his attitude toward soft money in politics. Is some soft money okay, and others are not? what does he propose to regulate soft money speficially different from what is currently being done? And what's his view (scope) about Middle East and foreign policies besides talking to the leaders?

Posted by: b. wu | February 15, 2008 6:39 PM | Report abuse

the only difference is between dumb and dumber.

Posted by: dwight | February 15, 2008 6:42 PM | Report abuse

i am not white.

Posted by: b. wu | February 15, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

I think muskrat's comment's said it all!!A INDEPENDENT.WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!!

Posted by: Robert | February 15, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

The divide isn't based on policy differences or the strength of the candidates, it's because Clinton, for all the assaults her husband waged on the working class, is more of a known quantity. It doesn't seem to serve the rational self-interest of a working person to take a somewhat larger risk by supporting a less-known candidate, however inspiring and great they may be. They're less insulated from the effects of a disaster on the off-chance he turns out to be Jimmy Carter.

Oh, but I use phrases like, "rational self-interest," so I support Obama. Really, all he needs to do is spend more time talking to unions and convincing them they know him.

Posted by: guyminuslife | February 15, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

This is one republican who will be voting in a democratic primary.

When Mc Cain wins are you going to call me a bigot or misogynist?

Posted by: Ha! Ha! | February 15, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

the more i read these posts the more appalled i am by the racism.
and then there is the constant regurgitation of campaign BS. to those who like to go on about Obama's 'empty' rhetoric, i pose that he doesn't read off details of his plans during his speeches because he knows that we can read! please go to the candidates web sites and download their info on issues. for the first time in presidential politics we have broadband internet accessible to most voters and it is very easy to validate the candidates substance or lies. Obama offers more detailed, intelligent and comprehensive plans on issues than Clinton and McCain combined, it's right there in black & white and people are aware of it. this is why the more time passes the worse Clinton looks.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 15, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

I live in south Chicago, near Obamas district and the only time I am surrounded by a homogenous group of upper income white Americans addicted to conformity is when I am in class.

Posted by: Dees' wrong | February 15, 2008 7:04 PM | Report abuse

"This survey provides the single best documented indication of the impact of college education on people's attitudes toward diversity and race."

Several (4+) years in college, but no degree (changed majors, never finished). Interracially married. Frequent visits to other countries. Mix easily with people of all races, economic classes. Software engineer, well paid.

Clinton supporter. Getting more and more offended by Obama elitists.

Posted by: RH | February 15, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

Just what I've been saying all along.

Smarter people like Obama better.

Seriously, though, people who go to college are probably a lot more likely to pay attention to politics. A lot of people who don't pay attention to politics don't even really know who Obama is; everybody knows who Clinton is, though. People who know who Obama is (college grads) like him better.

As soon as Ohioans and Texans start paying attention, they'll shift toward Obama- college grads and dropouts alike.

Posted by: Iconoclast | February 15, 2008 7:15 PM | Report abuse

"What I favor Clinton over Obama is that while Clinton often talks about her policies, Obama chants slogans without much substance. For example, when he frequently speaks of change to the politics, I have not heard he articulate his attitude toward soft money in politics. Is some soft money okay, and others are not? what does he propose to regulate soft money speficially different from what is currently being done? And what's his view (scope) about Middle East and foreign policies besides talking to the leaders?"

Obama has a long history on campaign finance reform issues going back to his days in Illinios. There's a track record here.

Politicians generally play fast and loose with the truth. I think it's safe to say that most people would agree with this. So I would put the greatest emphasis on the actual record rather than on the rhetoric. There is a legislative history here in terms of earmarks legislation and campaign finance reform.

Clinton has fought against transparency in government and things such as earmark disclosures. (Follow the legislative history on Coburn-Obama. She ultimately voted for the bill, but at the stage when the bill was being formulated she voted down some of the stronger amendments -- the amendments would not have made it through were it not for a handful of Democrats who took the long view on this issue -- including Senators Obama, Kerry, Tester, Webb, and Feingold).

In reference to foreign policy there is also plenty of information out there as well. Steve Clemons a DC based foreign policy analyst had a nice break-down on the Obama v. Clinton foreign policy approaches to Cuba today for example. His blog the Washington Note is worth checking out.

There is plenty of credible information out there beyond stump speeches.

Posted by: JP2 | February 15, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

kdogdem: Your stellar "logic" assumes Obama wouldn't win the states that Hillary would win. He will and then some. She can't even think about putting purple states in play, like Virgina.

Go on, vote Hillary, then go back to school while the Republicans butt rape you for four more years.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 15, 2008 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Now with the numbers in, I find it maliciously misleading to claim people with college degree or above support Obama.
Look at the numbers, are there any sane people who believe IL or NY should count? Let's take out NJ as well. Actually Hillary leads Obama in more states among white with college degree. Where is this propaganda of more educated people preferring Obama coming from?
By the way, Asians and Black are not counted. I guess those Asian kids working hard to get to college deserve less credit than their AA counterparts such as Obama.

Posted by: Carl | February 15, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Yes, Obama can unite both the 3+million far left moveon members who hate GOP so much and the moderate independents/GOP, before people know him more and more. A "UNITER" who labels Hillary as Bush, yet so many people have no memory that 8 years ago Dubya promised to be the "UNITER" and "fresh air outside Washington".

Fool me twice... you can get fooled again. Not only twice, the third time again. "YES, WE CAN", we can get fooled again and again.

Posted by: Carl | February 15, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

It proves that there are more educated "whites" than non-educated "whites".

Posted by: ONEFREEMAN | February 15, 2008 7:41 PM | Report abuse

The Blacks tend to guarantee there will never be a black president. Many Whites won't vote for an extreme liberal and most Blacks tend to be liberals. If a Black happens to be conservative, like for instance Alan Keyes, he will be portrayed as a nutcase or an Uncle Tom, and anyone who votes for him (or her) ridiculed.
Most women in high office tend to be pro-abortion. The majority of men are against abortion; this makes it difficult for a women to ever be elected. This election may be the exception to both rules above, because the conservative Republican base was split, and a Liberal Republican won. With it now a choice between Liberals, who cares? Even though I am a staunch Republican Conservative, I will probably vote for the Green Party candidate. If the Democrat loses, and the number of votes siphoned off by the Green Party makes the difference, the Democrats will not be happy with the tree huggers. If McCaine wins, I can hope that he wins in the Electoral College without a majority of the popular vote, and no mandate or power. Electing McCaine is like paying off a kidnapper and hoping he doesn't kidnap again. Electing Obama is actually probably the best for me, for he will create all kinds of expensive new programs, and I will be retiring soon and reaping the benefits, and the stupid "me generation" people who vote Obama in office will be paying for my retirement with new taxes. Hardly ethical, but for me sweet revenge on those people who vote based on skin color, instead of on voting record.

Posted by: Bill | February 15, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse

kdogdem is another Hillary supporter who ignores the base rate. People who ignore important numbers should not be predicting elections (or running expensive campaigns, or waging expensive and ill-conceived wars).

It doesn't matter how many Democrats in rural Missouri like you. If you want to win this swing state, as I sit here typing in St. Louis, you need to win the swing voters in places like Columbia and St. Charles. That's where the numbers are. That's why you need the base rate. Obama won in those places over Clinton. Whether he can do that over McCain is another question, but he can certainly appeal to the independents in those areas better than Clinton can. She can beat Obama in Bull Creek, where maybe 10 of the 225 people are Democrats (and of the three people who turned out, she maybe beat him 2-1), but come election day, McCain will win 200-3 in Bull Creek, and Democrats will be hoping for a better split of the 116,000 voters in St. Charles and St. Peters, where crossover is possible.

I am curious now where kdogdem got the education she brags about... Not to be mean -- just to get another data point. She opened the issue by mentioning it!

BTW, note that the most significant difference, between educated and uneducated preference, occurs in MO (then TN, a close second). 30-(-26) = 56, a whopping difference in opinion.

Posted by: Ronald Loui | February 15, 2008 7:49 PM | Report abuse

JP2 and the anonymous commentor who posted at 7:02 pm are right. Obama isn't all rhetoric. I was quite surprised myself to find this out because of all the media hoopla and misinformation from the Clinton camp about his so-called lack of experience or substance. Go to his website OR better yet, check out independent/non-partisan websites that compare each candidate in more detail. Fore example, or the more lightweight but still interesting

Posted by: ConcernedCitizen | February 15, 2008 7:53 PM | Report abuse

Obama wins Virginia, with a lot of D.C. beltway educated whites who don't like Clinton.

Illinois is a lost cause for votes for Hillary.

So what's the story? She gets the "Downscale voters"? What's wrong with the WP?

Otherwise Hillary seems to outperform Obama on educated voters too. Except for Missouri.

Hillary polls really well with many demographics. Same with Obama. Quit trying to make Obama into the rainbow candidate.

Posted by: camasca | February 15, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

This is a point I've been posting about for the past two weeks. The fact is when it comes to some what close primaries, the "KoolAid drinkers" that Clinton supportes like to call us who back Obama mostly have college and PostGrad degree. While the ever prudent and logical voters that back Clinton lack basic college degree educations. This is a testament to a couple things 1. When the race is close it's often due to voters lack of willing to actually do the research and figure out who/what Obama stands for 2. Obama's grass-roots movement started shortly after his DNC speech by college/post-grad students who knew and highly reasoned to the great need for a man like Obama as president and thiat grass-roots work has lead to highly dedicated individual supporting him from bottom-up!!

Another study should be conducted on high the upper-class has been consistently voting for Clinton....

Posted by: VarsityBlueNYC | February 15, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

My well-educated and affluent NoVA vote and support has gone to Hillary Clinton and that's where it will remain. She is the candidate with the most substance and experience and the clearest vision. She's not dreaming of a better future, she's pushing her sleeves up and planning for the hard work of seeing American through its recovery.

Obama should take a lesson from some of the polled voters and educate himself. Perhaps he'll offer more substance in 8 years, but for now, he's all flash at a time when we desperately need strength and experience.

If by some miracle Obama does win the White House, we'll see another one-term pony and watch in horror as the presidency goes back to the Republicans.

Eight years of Hillary Clinton followed by eight years of a better educated and more experienced Obama seems quite enticing.

Posted by: Lynn | February 15, 2008 7:59 PM | Report abuse

A comparison of Post-Grad (Obama) and Non-Post-grad (Clinton) would have even shown a more compelling disparity

Posted by: VarsityBlueNYC | February 15, 2008 8:01 PM | Report abuse

I think people are reading too much into this. The real number here is the percent of people in each group who believe the countyry is ready for a black president. Non-college educated whites are more skeptical about this. So, what does that tell you? They aren't voting for Clinton because they are racist against blacks. They are voting for Clinton because they perceive her to be more electable.

Since Katrina, I've been living in Alexandria, Louisiana. I have a whole different "class" of friends than I had in New Orleans. In New Orleans my friends were all like me, college educated, and most likely educated at the great Jesuit university, Loyola University New Orleans. But now I have more downscale friends. Most around here are Republicans. But the few Democratic friends I have are your typical non-educated whites. They are for Clinton. They'd all gladly support Obama in the general election, but they just don't believe, no matter how hard I try to convince them otherwise, that he would win the general election.

So, you see, my non-college educated friends, aren't racist rednecks who don't like black people. They are strategic voters who want to win in November, and they think that Clinton will win, and Obama won't. They are incredibly wrong about that, but they don't have a fine Jesuit education to rely on.

Posted by: Robert | February 15, 2008 8:03 PM | Report abuse

But varsityblue, look at the tables!

Minus their home states, and minus the DC beltway that hates Clinton in Virginia, Clinton outdrew the educated vote 7 to 3! Throw in Virginia its still 7 to 4!

Educated white voters seem split between the two.

Makes sense because their isn't any difference between the two in policy.

These issues fights on the post is ludicrous, on paper, they are the same candidates!

Posted by: camasca | February 15, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Please don't assume that "Obama's" grassroot support is due to his popularity in more educated people. That's simply not true. The main reason that he has this "grassroot" in pocket is because the owner of grassroot brings 3+million members to work for Obama FOR FREE. Even worse, Kerry SOLD the maillist of people who donated to his 2004 presidential campaign to Obama, another gigantic FREE source of money.

The pundits just choose to hide these simple facts with this rosy fairy tale.

Ask the Asains, who have much higher percentage of college/post-grad degrees. Ask them why they vote overwhelmingly for Hillary. They vote for Hillary because they have seen way too many this kind of cheap talking lying politicians who make empty promises and bring only disasters.

Posted by: Carl | February 15, 2008 8:08 PM | Report abuse

RH: You're a software engineer. How many programming jobs have been outsourced to India thanks to Clinton's NAFTA? How much have wages been depressed for the programmers here who haven't lost their jobs? And as for being offended, the Clinton racist posters (60% of pro-Clinton posts have at least a tinge of racism and many are overt) are simply beyond the pale. I got SO mad about it, I sent Obama the max contribution, simply because (a) I could and (b) the svreaders of the world can't. Point for Obama!

jaywpat: You are exactly correct that "More educated does not mean more intelligent." Intelligence is your capacity for learning. Education (loosely) is the amount of learning you have experienced. Since people pay for what you _know_, and not for what you _could possibly know if you had actually studied_, more educated people do have higher incomes. If you were educated, you would know that. . .

Bottom line: the smarter you are, the more likely you are to be an Obama supporter. The dumber you are, the more likely you are to swallow the Clinton Arkansas-tested, Arkansas-approved BS that they've peddled, to varying degrees of success, since the 80s. (Pros: two WH wins. Cons: lost Congress for the first time in two generations.)

I'll just point this out: Bill Clinton was once a _horrible_ speaker. He got better, a lot better. Say what you will of him, he is an extremely intelligent man. His biggest flaw is that he lets his emotions (lust, anger) overcome his judgment (he really should have known better than to liken Obama's SC win to Jesse Jackson -- he probably took the loss personally, given his efforts in that state).

Hillary is no better a candidate now than she was six months ago. She simply is not as smart as Bill, or Obama. Her nomination/coronation strategy has been as misguided as the Cheney/Rumsfeld "we'll be welcomed with flowers" approach to the Iraq War. And what to me is most damning is that she seems to use the same approach to appointing staff that George W. Bush uses, i.e., personal loyalty over skill. If this were football, David Plouffe and David Axelrod are playing the role of Bill Walsh, and Mark Penn and Solis-Doyle are playing the role of Rich Kotite. When the Clinton campaign team talks, you know it's spin with a healthy serving of lies (oh, we're fine for cash, even though I had to loan my campaign $5 million and we've got unpaid bills in Iowa). When the Obama campaign team talks, you know it's pretty much true, with a healthy dose of spin (when they said they were where they planned to be after Super Tuesday, you can see they weren't spinning, given Obama's winning streak and contributions since then).

Posted by: RL | February 15, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

I am deeply offended by many of the posts here. I am a college-educated mother of two who is supporting Hillary Clinton. I am the first and ONLY person who has graduated from college in my family's history. Just because I have a college education doesn't give me the right to decide which candidate "speaks" to the "educated" and which candidate doesn't. A majority of the people in this country do not have college educations. We need to hear from those people. Anyone can get caught up in the rhetoric of Barack Obama - the man is an incredible speaker. But let's consider who will roll up their sleeves and get the job done. I could care less about rhetoric. I want a person who will "do" - not just "talk."

Posted by: AlexandriaMom | February 15, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse

White America - prepare your children and grandchildren to be the largest minority in the country.
A minority with out much power if it can't vote together as a bloc.

Posted by: G Orwell | February 15, 2008 8:14 PM | Report abuse

This is how dumb some of these posters are. Clinton beat Obama in the sub category White College educated voters in 10 out of 15 states in the study. So the smart people are voting for Clinton. One of the states was Illinois which you could throw out because it is clearly partisan! If its Obama with his meaningless slogans and lack of accomplishments this middle-age college grad democrat is voting for Mccain! (It will be the first election I will vote Republican)

Posted by: Joe | February 15, 2008 8:21 PM | Report abuse

People say that they are ready for a woman president, but in reality they are not. At the end of the day the race is between a man and a woman, and people are not yet ready to side with the woman.

Posted by: Priya Kumar | February 15, 2008 8:22 PM | Report abuse

I feel offended that somebody would say Obama is smarter than Hillary. Anybody can do public speech with scripts. Yes, Obama certainly has talents to do better than Hillary. But Obama just does horrible during debates because he isn't as smart as Hillary, and he doesn't have substance. That's why he refuses to debate. If he's a better debater than Hillary, I bet he'll ask for one debate every hour!

We used to see another presidential candidate who jibjabbed during debate and always "spoke from his heart". That person's name is George W. Bush. Yes, blacks are not necessarily smarter than the white.

Posted by: Carl | February 15, 2008 8:22 PM | Report abuse

I think that when its closely examined, Hillary Clinton's position on health care is more favorable to the poor and middle class than the Obama position.

Obama's feel good proposals just won't be able to do it. Why, because it is ONLY if everyone is insured that the rates can be kept affordable for everybody. That is basic math. Its unavoidable. Its how they make universal healthcare work all over the world.

Allowing some people (the currently healthy) to opt out virtually guarantees a plans failure. He must know that.

I know that many will argue with me but I also think that there is a good chance that Clinton is the only candidate who has the CLOUT to make any real changes on health care and the economy.

We just can't take the risk of a President who can't EXECUTE CHANGES.

We are in a crisis and this WON'T wait another four or eight years.

I think that Obama, as a neophyte to the halls of real power, would be too busy in his first term simply establishing his credibility. That is if he wins. He might not win. Hillary is smarter and more prepared. Democrats have historically been far better for the economy than Republicans , especially for the poor and middle class, and clearly, she has an excellent grasp of the issues. The economy will recover under a Democratic administration because people will have confidence again. They won't feel as if the country is being stolen out from underneath them like they do now. Those who claim that Hillary 'is an insider' are wrong. The GOP has essentially been in a position of power since the 90s. They have controlled all Federal spending and they have (again) put this country FAR INTO DEBT. The GOP has been funneling money to their friends and away from the kinds of expenditures that create jobs or build a future. Its been a nightmare for many of us. The entire future of America as we know it is at stake. What we are seeing is disinvestment and pillage on a massive scale.

Hillary can stop that, she can hit the ground running and thats what we need.

Perhaps the well to do are not as financially embattled as the middle class, but they are next in line if someone doesn't turn the economy around. Good jobs are disappearing and this will effect everyone if it hasn't already. The middle class in the US was the envy of the world 20 years ago. Now we are increasingly pitied. Healthcare is a start. It will slow the massive stripping of equity that is now effecting so many of us.

I think Obamas folk are not as honest about that as they need to be. There IS a war going on by many of the powerful against poor and middle class people and the safeguards that protected us a few years ago are gone.

I think Hilary understands the nature of that war more than Barack does.

Obama says he doesn't want to 'demonize' his opponents but they have pretty much done that to themselves with their greed.

Posted by: Figment | February 15, 2008 8:27 PM | Report abuse

This article is extremely misleading.

The issues that divides Obama / Clinton supporters are economic, not racial.

Working class whites remember Bill Clinton fondly and believe that Hillary will fight for them like they perceive (rightly or wrongly) that Bubba fought for them during the 1990's.

Obama has forged no real connection with working class whites. On the other hand, college-educated whites are fresh off of four plus years of "DIVERSITY" training and brainwashing.

To the college-educated liberal, there is no quality more important than "DIVERSITY."

Good people embrace diversity. Bad people question diversity.

Diversity is always good.

Diversity is wonderful.

These people (I work in public education, so I live amidst the diversity movement) base their self-worth and identity on the fact that they are enlightened people, spreading the all-encompassing message of diversity to the ignorant amongst us.

That's why they vote for Obama.

Very simple.

Posted by: ds | February 15, 2008 8:34 PM | Report abuse

many of Clinton's supporters may not be college educated BUT we know enough to vote for McCain over the weak and cowardly Obama.

Go Hilary or McCain

Posted by: StuffTheElite | February 15, 2008 8:34 PM | Report abuse

On the theory we're hierarchal creatures with a drive to feel higher on the food chain than some group or another (though we shouldn't), it may be that college shifts our sense of status from race to education. In other words, Obama's being college-educated is all that matters to the college-educated. As somebody with two college degrees, I'm not inclined to indulge the myth that college removes prejudice.

Posted by: jhbyer | February 15, 2008 8:41 PM | Report abuse

Bill said "...Hardly ethical, but for me sweet revenge on those people who vote based on skin color, instead of on voting record."

I hope you're not suggesting that the only thing Obama has to offer the country is his skin color, and that the latter is the only reason that people, especially blacks, would vote for him. If you are, then applying your same logic to George W. leads me to the following point:

The economic mess in which the country now finds itself, the war-mongering and waste of billions of dollars in Iraq for dubious reasons, the squandering of international goodwill towards America, the loss of America's moral high ground on human rights, the trampling of the Constitution and gradual erosion of our civil liberties, the rampant cronyism leading to spectacular failures such as the post-Katrina response, the politicization and corruption of the Justice department, etc., etc., are all sweet revenge on those people, especially whites, who voted based solely on skin color for a moronic president who has seriously damaged our country. Cheers.

Posted by: ConcernedCitizen | February 15, 2008 8:44 PM | Report abuse

Saying that "I connect with working class whites" is, in effect, according to this article, a code phrase that says the democratic party of Bull Connor is alive & well on the coasts and the rust belt.
Just ask Ed Rendell or read the Pittsburgh paper for another quote on this subject.
Does this indicate that Hillary Clinton's campaign is turning to this because they lost "the black vote"?
Trust the Clinton's to represent the Bull Connor wing of the democratic party a reflect the continuation of the politics of divide and conquer through extortion and bribery.
No wonder the Clinton's will be able to steal the nomination.
With folks like Ed "Bull Connor" Rendell backing up the play what chance does democracy and a black man have in America?

Posted by: paul94611 | February 15, 2008 8:56 PM | Report abuse

sorry, I'm just amused by "isles of Wal-mart". What a hilarious mental image that is.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 15, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

StuffTheElite: Thank you for proving our point.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 15, 2008 9:12 PM | Report abuse

paul94611, I'm a pretty cynical voter -- and I'd say that Bush provided a nice template for how to win an election. Build a coalition between ignorants who deliver the votes and the ultra-rich who deliver the money. There are some this election cycle who have definitely pandered to the lowest common denominator. McCain to his credit has not -- although he is starting to suck up a lot of dirty money from the usual suspects.

As far as racial prejudice is concerned -- it is certainly alive and well in parts of the U.S. It seems to track especially strong with some elements of blue collar labor. Interestingly, the correlation is less strong when we look at communities that rely more on agriculture. There is a road to an election for Obama and it will be primarily northeast, California, plus some mid-Atlantic states, plus the midwest, plus the mountain west. Even in spite of lingering racial prejudice, Obama has a road to victory in the general election -- if he wins the nomination.

Posted by: JP2 | February 15, 2008 9:17 PM | Report abuse

Just looking at the stats, it seems to me they don't tell enough of the story to be very meaningful. We need to know more about each cohort. Who are the less educated and the more educated? Are they more likely to be male/ female? What are their age distributions? Income distributions?

Education attainment in itself may not be very important as a determinant of preference. Apparently, Hillary's strongest support comes from older females - the very people who are likely to be less educated and live on lower incomes.

I have not been watching up close till now, but maybe Hillary has been preaching to the choir: positioning herself to appeal to those most likely to suppport her at the expense of making appeals to those allegiances can be more easily detached. Obama has been able to draw support away from some of Clinton's Democratic cohorts as well as from the non-aligned.

Maybe Obama is just running a better-convceived and executed campaign: making appeals to those who want neither a Republican nor a Clinton; he certainly has a more inclusive and broadly-based 'get-out-the-vote' program in most places.

As for the criticism that Obama is all talk and no substance, I think there is a lot to be said for looking good and sounding good while building simple recognition for "persona" and "identity". If that means you make fewer hard policy commitments, well that is not necessarily a bad thing. 90% of "comunication" is about how messages are conveyed rather than what is said.

One further thing, Clinton has ventured into 'negative' message terrain. This is potentially disastrous for her. She risks alienating all those who are favourably disposed toward Obama - those who want a (maybe impossible) break from the partisan and want to feel optimistic about themselves and their country again. She runs the risk of reinforcing Obama's message: that he is the voice of hope and change. The more she (or McCain) rely negative messages, the more "value" is infused into Obama's persona. This was the lesson of South Carolina, or so i thought.

Posted by: distantobserver | February 15, 2008 9:19 PM | Report abuse

Clinton supporter. Getting more and more offended by Obama elitists.

Posted by: RH
Give me a break Obama supporters are in no way elitists.

Now Hillary and her ilk are elitists.

Posted by: RH is Wrong | February 15, 2008 9:28 PM | Report abuse

Agree that my husband Bill did good to this country but one should not take that into consideration while voting for me. Women president it just doesn't sound interesting or reasonable for me. Look at the history with women on the throne not much progress?? Don't you agree? Didn't read any significant contribution to the development of mankind by a us in my history books. We just lack a link in our DNA which ain't good- uknowmsayin? Check your biology books. I am voting for Barack.

Posted by: Hilary Clinton | February 15, 2008 9:30 PM | Report abuse

Obama is good, inspirational speaker that's all. What are his acheievemnt till date anyways.
He is all rhetoric of "CHANGE" because it's the new buzzword in town.
In every speech he talks same lines and terrorizing people that the country is broken, Washington is all hell and he is the ONLY ONE who can fix it ELSE we all will die.
He is using the same Bush terror tactics but different way.
Just like Bush he is good speaker and can make crown believe in what he says even though he lacks subsatnce and experuence otherwise.
Obama will be another Jimy Carter if he can beat McCain (whichis not going to happen anyway)

Posted by: Mike Oba | February 15, 2008 9:31 PM | Report abuse

Even after reading the first few comments, I can see the same pattern that I've seen on nearly every other comment board to follow articles regarding the race between Clinton and Obama. I've seen more than a few of those who admit to not having had a college education display fine minds, and often declaring their support for Obama. But there is a consistent stream of Clinton supporters who write in to proclaim Obama as bereft of policy positions. This is a farce. Obama's policies are on his website. They are VERY detailed. They address complexities that Clinton's policies simply don't.

Perhaps the biggest divide in this race is not necessarily between those with a college degree and those without one, but between those who have the ability to find information on the same internet that apparently both groups can access, and those who lack that ability.

Posted by: Philadelphia for Obama | February 15, 2008 9:45 PM | Report abuse

Obama is high rhetoric and no substance. Just what we need in a President for a ship of fools.

Go Obama

Posted by: ChangeWhat | February 15, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse

Let's take a closer look at who's really qualified and or who's really working for the good of all of us in the Senate. Obama or Clinton.

These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress

Some comparison link

Please pass this on


Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term - 6yrs. - and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law - 20 - twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years.

These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress, but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you.

1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.
4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea.
7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.
10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.
13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.
15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty. Only five of Clinton's bills are, more substantive.
16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11 18. Assist landmine victims in other countries.
19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.

There you have it, the fact's straight from the Senate Record.


During the first - 8 - eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced

233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.

NY TImes Obama's record in the Illinois Senate

His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These inculded:

1. The Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 - became law,
2. The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, - became law,
3. The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate,
4. The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, - became law,
5. The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, In committee, and many more.

In all, since entering the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096.

An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no record according to some who would prefer that this comparison not be made public.

Posted by: dave | February 15, 2008 9:53 PM | Report abuse

What about the "racial divide" for blacks. 90% of blacks are voting for Obama. Where is the interspection with that statistic. It is clearly racism..but the liberal white elite have determined that "blacks can not, by definition, be racist". This is creating a growing feeling of unfairness amoung the "downscale" white folk...Liberal speak for "white trash".

Posted by: Slick Willie | February 15, 2008 10:00 PM | Report abuse

If elected will Obama repeal NAFTA? Will he repeal the pending trade agreement with Peru? I would like one of Obama's educated supporters to answer this for me.

Posted by: Michelle | February 15, 2008 10:04 PM | Report abuse

i think the divide is between those who are able to inform themselves and see through blatant political lies (like obama has no plans for making college affordable, when he routinely speaks about a $4000 credit for every student in exchange for community service) and those who cannot. those are the people hillary clinton targets with her ridiculous false assertions and negative ads. in order to overcome that, it takes time to connect with those folks, especially when you are the new kid on the block. when obama has the time and opportunity to spread his message, he does better and better.

Posted by: ricky | February 15, 2008 10:05 PM | Report abuse

"In all, since entering the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096."

So, he has "written" about 1 Bill/day while in the Senate. This is obviously false, since he has spent very little time in the Senate, since he spends most of his time running for presided. I do not believe 890 bills have even been introduced in the last 10 years in total. This is just plain lie. Even though, if he authored 890 bills, he as had ZERO approved, for a very high failure rate. So, like his speeches, a lot of words, but no end results.

Posted by: Jack | February 15, 2008 10:06 PM | Report abuse

Response to Figment 8:27 PM

How exactly is Hillary's plan more beneficial for low-income citizens when she plans to penalize them for not signing up. It is my understanding that sign-up will be compulsory. Thus the question begs asking, "Do the the salaries of those most vulnerable in this economy magically increase to accommodate the insane pricing of medical insurance today?" Let's see now, so Hillary will be able to say that everyone is insured, but they will starve or not be able to afford other essentials (gas prices *cough*) so that she can have this accomplishment. President Clinton speaks of Fairy Tales, but really, people can't even afford to keep their roofs over their heads, but being forced to pay for Health Insurance (at least at the current rates) isn't a Fairy Tale. As stated, I live in CA. Now we're not talking insuring a single car. Let's say you have one of the unfortunate millions who's employers either don't contribute at all or much. We'll say this "theoretical" family consist of two children and two adults. Now, what would Blue Cross or Kaiser for that matter charge for this family. Go look it up. You might be surprised. Of course to make the plan affordable per month, the deductible has to be more unrealistic etc. etc. But hey, maybe that is better for everyone involved. I do agree with Hillary, speeches don't put food on the table, but if she gets her way they certainly can take some off.

Posted by: Michael (Los Angeles) | February 15, 2008 10:07 PM | Report abuse

Well, if the numbers are any indication, Hillary leads in most states with white college grads. I figured all along the numbers were being distorted to favor BO.
Mass. is the most educated state in the country. Guess who won that one...yep. HRC.

BO's getting most of the youth vote. That helps him claim more college educated whites as well. I'm college educated, and was also very interested in politics during my college years, but I know there's no lesson like life to wisen up the voter. I vote for HRC.

I do like BO however. He's a very gifted orator for sure. The Republicans are already calling him Pres. Hussein, and mentioning he has oratorical skills reminiscent of Hitler. I hope his supporters can toughen up!! They've gotten the softball pass so far.

There's a reason why the media has been reluctant to air the loudmouthed comments by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson Jr....They know it would turn off the white voter.

Posted by: KMB08 | February 15, 2008 10:15 PM | Report abuse

A comment on the person inferring that more educated voters are smarter and so vote for Obama:

more educated voters make more money, so do have the luxury of not caring about day to day economics and health care. They have enough money so they do not really care about the specifics. They need a cult to replace the religion they often have lossed or don't understand, or an ideal that makes them feel better about themselves without actually doing anythin concrete.

That is to say not all college graduates think only about themselves: I have 2 college degrees including one in physics and I will vote for Sen. Clinton because she will do more for the lower income people that need it.

Posted by: vince | February 15, 2008 10:15 PM | Report abuse

You yuppie elitess, I can not believe how arrogant you sound in putting down those who are unable to obtain an education. I have college degree and I don't flaunt it. How sad, so you guys know what everyone needs. I can see that knowledge can corrupt just like power. How about a little humility for a change. Deal with the fact that your candidate, Obama is having a hard time convincing the poor in this country that he is better for them. He is struggling with blue collar workers and well, you should ask yourself and Obama why. But, don't claim its because those who don't support Obama are some how naive or ignorrant. No wonder, America is seen throughout the rest of the world as arrogant. I see now, that its not just the republicans who are full of it.
Vote Hillary and save us.

Posted by: Chris | February 15, 2008 10:16 PM | Report abuse

This blogger is dumb! Race is not an issue here. It is about how good a president you will be. And clearly Obama is the better choice. It is about issues, dummy! Choose with your head not with your heart!

Posted by: whitedem | February 15, 2008 10:17 PM | Report abuse

I am a Clinton supporter and have two master's degrees and high income...and younger than Obama. It is apparent that the media likes to divide and denigrate a certain sector of the electorate. The last acceptable group to bash is working-class white. The so-called "educated" voter may vote for a "feel-good" candidate but the average voter wants experience and competence. The irony is that the "less educated" voter is choosing Clinton ---better candidate. It is therefore apparent that there is little correlation between education and intelligence. Try leaving the beltway sometime.

Posted by: Bob | February 15, 2008 10:17 PM | Report abuse

just likes i thout, dumbs people votes for clintone.

Posted by: mr democrats | February 15, 2008 10:25 PM | Report abuse

KMB08, of course those GOP supporters have never watched any Hitler footage. Just imagine Hitler writing a book called "The Audacity of Hope" or running a positive campaign (the Nazis always went negative everyday all the time -- they actually pioneered many negative campaigning techniques that are still with us).

vince, many college educated voters are subject to the same financial worries as those on the deep end of the financial divide. Skyrocketing energy, health care costs, and tuition costs are hitting the middle class. Stagnant median wages by definition impact the middle class.

It's interesting that you'd mention that "educated voters don't have to worry about day to day issues" -- I've heard someone say this before and it is just patently false. I would expect that you would be aware of this two -- unless with those 2 college degrees you have leap-frogged into a world less subject to day to day financial worries.

A lot of us are backing someone like Obama precisely because we are getting squeezed and we see Obama's broad based approach -- including getting more support in Congress as keys to getting real changes put into place. There is a reason that a lot of purple state politicians are getting behind Obama's campaign. He also worked his tail off to flip congressional seats into the blue column in 2006. A president alone can't get the job done -- not without broad-based support in congress and an active and engaged voting population. In his stump speeches Obama has at least been honest about this fact.

Posted by: JP2 | February 15, 2008 10:26 PM | Report abuse

Since the Republicans nominated McCain, I see trouble for the Dems. Anyone else and it would almos be no problem. I cannot tell which candidate is heart over head. The dems went with head and got Kerry instead of the likely more effectice Dean in 2004. Since Hillary is down and all say she is too devisive, she could be something special but so could Obama. Just not sure if he and the country is ready. Hillary is not that much to write home about.

Bill Clinton hurt the country and working class people should think about as we are not sure on Obama. The best candidate was John Edwards. Least likley to sell out !

The Clintons gave us:

- Republican control of Congress
- Made the dull Al Gore presidency even less likely
- Gave us GAAT, NAFTA, the WTO ( all great for working America ?)
- Media consolidation and rules that aided the Republicans
- Secretary Ruben cashing in by going to Wall Street after a great deal for them but bad for most Americans
- Out of control prison population
- Less government openess

Yes, Clinton was great. I just hope Hillary is truly more for the people where it counts, but we already know she loves to insource jobs from India. She already told us she could be elected in Punjaab.

Posted by: LA | February 15, 2008 10:27 PM | Report abuse

To answer one of the above comments, Jesse Jackson was on MSNBC the other day:
They did fail to mention he was an Obama supporter as they often do (anytime a Clinton supporter speaks over there they identify him/her as such, and almost make it seem like a major problem).

Anyway he was trying to explain how voters in Florida would be disenfranchised if their votes counted !!! Wow !!!

It is interesting that Sen. Obama ran national adds in Florida (he was the only one) yet he claims he needs people to meet him to vote for him! Did he plan on meeting the 1.7 million voters who voted in Florida? I guess he figures Florida voters do not have cable TV and do not know anything about him or his policies. Or maybe his policies are ...

Posted by: vince | February 15, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

Next we'll start hearing that only the less educated working class voters are real Democrats. Stop, this is divisive crap. Even the better educated are one bad economy away from unemployed. Painting educated people as effete intellectual snobs out of touch with the "average" American is a Nixon/Agnew style political smear that was honed to perfection by Rove and company...and look what we got. The Bush child and his phony Texas aw shucksism. Want more of that?

Posted by: thebob.bob | February 15, 2008 10:31 PM | Report abuse

I'd love to break this down further and find out which candidate does better among those who graduated from "elite" colleges (Ivys, Stanford, Northwestern, MIT and other private schools). After all, they're inherently, and obviously, better than us mere state-U peons.

Posted by: Vincent | February 15, 2008 10:32 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Chris above. All of you Obama supporters believe that the uneducated will soon love Obama just like you once they understand who he is. Perhaps, they do know who he is and are smart enough to see through him and realise that he has nothing to offer the county. I have a college degree and I voted for Hillary because I saw through the false promises Obama was offering and realized that he had no substance. He offers no views on any subject and just provides catch phrases like "Change" and "Hope." This country has had enough of catch phrases after Bush with his "WMD's." We need a president who can offer solutions to the every growing problems that America has. Vote for Hillary who can fix the country and stop insulting people who are probally smarter then you.

Posted by: Sara | February 15, 2008 10:34 PM | Report abuse

to propose that someone making 25K a year is in the same situation as a person 100K a year if he looses his job in terms of financial security is crap!
This has nothing to do with Nixon or Agnew. I like that when people lose an argument they use the bad guy did the same thing as an argument!

Posted by: vince | February 15, 2008 10:38 PM | Report abuse

I've noticed a certain lazy and self-absorbed contingency backing Clinton, and I'm not surprised. Their reasons? Clinton proposes some sort of universal healthcare system (details still unclear) but the net net is "hey, we can spend our money on beer and gambling!" rather than health insurance, so why the hell not? It's not just "downscale" Americans, but people who just don't give a sh**, who want to party and be irresponsible. These are the Clinton Americans. As a responsible, tax paying, hard working American who does not mind contributing to costs but does not want my taxes raised significantly to pay for these bums or see my health care options limited, I am heavily opposed to this contingent of white, 20-something, lazy losers shaping the future of our country. We've finally got a chance to be rid of Bush and the old guard. I'm looking forward to some CHANGE with Obama!

Posted by: sweetbabydems | February 15, 2008 10:39 PM | Report abuse

Slick Willie, yes black people never vote for white people in great numbers ? And they will always vote for a black guy over a white guy. That is why Ken Blakwell is the governor of Ohio and Allan Keyes is a Senator from Maryland over the white people that are and have been the senators from Maryland.

Just in case it is needed, that was sarcasm.

Posted by: LA | February 15, 2008 10:39 PM | Report abuse

Actually, she can beat McCain by winning in the swing states that are likely to decide the election: MO, OH, FL, and perhaps Penn. How? Well, in the MO primaries, for instance, she won all but four counties (there are over 100) with the very kind of voters that represent American writ large--exactly the kind of voters the original article identified as Clinton supporters (Obama only won in St. Louis and KC and their immediate suburbs), and she won them by bigger margins than the mere four counties he won, and most importantly, she drew more Dems to the polls than McCain did in the same counties for the Rep. primaries. MO is known as a bellweather state and with the exception of Stevenson in the early 1950s has always picked the winning Pres. That Clinton can win in MO and Obama cannot is proof positive that she could beat McCain and therefore should be the Dems choice in Denver. --kdogdem

Posted by: kdogdem | February 15, 2008 10:49 PM | Report abuse

The "economic issues" claim would make much more sense if there was a substantial policy disagreement between the two candidates about economic policy -- or if it weren't true that, controlling for level of education, Obama does better with poorer people. (See the statistical analysis here: )

Given the initial gap in name recognition between the candidates, and given all evidence that Obama is a more skilled campaigner who tends to do better when he gets more exposure, I'm inclined to believe that the difference between college and non-college voter preference has to do with how closely voters are following the race. While I'd expect plenty of exceptions, I'd expect college-educated voters to follow the election more closely, just as voter turnout tends to be correlated with education. And that should lead to more Obama support as level of education increases.

Posted by: davestickler | February 15, 2008 10:50 PM | Report abuse

"Clinton speaks of policies that sound good but have no substance"

What utter caca. Obviously you were a little boy or girl when Bill Clinton saved America from the destruction Bush disaster #1.

Posted by: Hillary All the Way!!!! | February 15, 2008 10:53 PM | Report abuse

But kdogdem, Obama won Missouri. There are no two ways around it!

There wasn't a campaign in Florida, so you can't really say much there, given how much of a name recognition advantage Clinton holds, and how much ground Obama makes up as he gets to know voters better.

Similarly, Ohio remains to be seen; the campaign has just started there, so it's not shocking that Clinton has a big lead. As March 4 approaches, I'd expect that lead to narrow significantly.

Finally, I'm not sure how you ignore states like Virginia, Minnesota, Colorado, etc., which any good politician would eye as potential swing states in a close election, and where Obama beat Clinton by really massive margins.

Posted by: davestickler | February 15, 2008 10:53 PM | Report abuse

vince, the median household income in the U.S. was $48,000 in 2006.

And yes, someone with a family at that level is in a bad situation if he or she loses a job period.

Median incomes for those with a masters degree was $62,000 a year in that same time frame and $45,000 for college graduates.

And yes, a person, at this income level is going to feel the pinch of health care, education, and energy costs even if they are employed. Especially when you consider that the average college graduate leaves school with $20,000 in debt these days.

I imagine that they don't teach economics as part of your physics curriculum?

Posted by: JP2 | February 15, 2008 10:55 PM | Report abuse

Ronald Reagan was and is a transformative figure for the right with only slightly some substance in his campaign but he could give a speech and had style. Slogans such as "It's morning in America" or "the city on the hill" had many democrats and independents buying in. Is there a Democratic person that could do such a thing for the country as he did but more for the progressive side ?

Let's remember, Jimmy Carter was a micro manager that seemed to know details about everything. Was he a great president ?

Unfortunately in this election, it is hard to tell which candidate is the safe candidate that might go nowhere and the one that is the not so safe but could bring great things. It is not as obvious as people think. I felt bad about my support because I felt I was rewarding some negative behavior from one of the candidates. Oh well ! I wish the media had given John Edwards some positive attention. It was either very little or negative. It was like they did not want him to do well for some reason !

Posted by: LA | February 15, 2008 10:55 PM | Report abuse

"Hillary All the Way", you're conflating Hillary with Bill. It's not an uncommon mistake, but, for Pete's sake, she could've given him nothing but terrible advice for his entire administration for all we know.

Posted by: davestickler | February 15, 2008 10:56 PM | Report abuse

To the person who posted all the bill information - you do relize that Obama has only been in the Senate for two years, right? How could he write or co-sponsor 890 bills during that time? You said "in his ten years in the U.S. Senate." He hasn't been in the Senate for ten years. Are you referring to the Illinois legislature? If so, please correct that statement. It's extremely misleading.

Posted by: Correct Information, Please | February 15, 2008 10:56 PM | Report abuse

1. Imagined Pride: Uneducated white folks don't have much to be proud of. So, they tend to cling to the idea that whites are superior. The sense of pride they get from this imagined superiority helps them tick.
2. Exposure: College is the ideal environment to meet people from different races. A chance to realize that personal excellence don't really correlate with race.
3. Better thought process: Most educated folks don't tolerate shameless distortion of facts. They know the difference between saying 'Ronald Reagan had lots of ideas' and being a republican sympathizer. Any one who can look up facts finds this distasteful.

Posted by: Abiyman | February 15, 2008 11:00 PM | Report abuse

One of the benefits of getting an education is that it is supposed to open up your mind, and make you tolerant, and capable of critical thinking.

However, the supposedly educated fools supporting Obama have unconditional hatred for Clinton(s). They never provide much reason for this inplicable hatred, which seems to spring from a bottomless pit. These Obamaniacs seem to take their lead from Rush ditto heads and other assorted right wing fools in spewing this vitriol - even the charges they level at the Clintons, such as "calculated, "cold blooded", "poll tested", "will do anything for x", and so on, are plagiarized from the right wing drones. At this point, the biggest thing that unites the Obamaniacs is hatred for Clinton, more than any inherent excitement about Obama, who is not much more than a sloganeer, with about 90% of the slogans about how great their movement is, not how that supposed movement will do anything for the country.

I have always been amazed at how the most bible-professing Christians from the deep South are the ones who seem to lack the compassion most; there is a striking resemblence to the "educated and free thinking" Obamaniacs whose every word oozes with hatred for the Clintons.

Posted by: intcamd | February 15, 2008 11:07 PM | Report abuse

to JP2:

You are missing the point! You are therefore saying that it is just as hard for someone making 62K to lose a job as someone making say 30K. Furthermore these are tendencies. Sen Clinton's base is below 50K. That includes some College graduates now doesn't that? But you are much more likely to be in the upper income groups if you are a College graduate (examples: lawyer, doctors, engineers) than if you have a high school diploma or less. So Sen Obama polls better in the College graduates that make above 50K. Sen Clinton polls netter in the ones making under 50K.
No one is saying that either of them have 0% support in the other groups!
Do you follow my reasoning?
My other degree, by the way, is in Statistics and Probablility testing which I have done for various types of groups in the medical field.

Posted by: vince | February 15, 2008 11:11 PM | Report abuse

Excellent posts. I went to college and support Hillary. Hopefully the "college experience accomplishes more than learning about diversity. To the point, I dont think we need another 4 years of on the job training regardless of race or sex. I dealism certainly has its place, but not in the White House

Posted by: sal | February 15, 2008 11:12 PM | Report abuse

despite being an obama supporter, i think there are lots of rational reasons to like hillary clinton. however, to buy into (or at least disseminate) this idea that obama has no specific plans is at best very inaccurate, and more likely deliberately false. clinton and obama both have detailed and reasonably similar policy plans (although as a health provider i have to say his health insurance plan makes more sense).

the biggest difference between the two of them is in character and in electability. most people would agree that he at least seems to be authentic. the polls indicate he's also more electable and less divisive, but none of us can predict the future. most of the rest of this stuff is just distraction in my opinion.

Posted by: ricky | February 15, 2008 11:14 PM | Report abuse

The reason that the poorly educated support Hillary Clinton is that they are more likely to go by name recognition only, and not research facts about the candidates. Fox news, also known for 0 integrity is part of basic cable that provides news to almost every home however poor.

Posted by: Katy | February 15, 2008 11:15 PM | Report abuse

katy being discriminatory to people that are less educated (and I say less as opposed to your use of the word poorly) is just as bad as being discriminatory on the basis of gender or race.
You should rethink your post as you seem to imply that less educated people can only recognise a name and do not have the intellectual power to analyse any facts.
What kind of College degree do you have to state something like that?

Posted by: vince | February 15, 2008 11:20 PM | Report abuse

I'm a white, middle aged, male, post-grad, Clinton Supporter. But I wasn't always a Clinton supporter - I didn't dig her husband all that much. I listened to her and she changed my mind. She could win in the general election if nominated. She has gravitas, she's smart, she knows the drill in Washington, she's doesn't take b.s. from anyone, and she's poised. She's the girl for the job. Maybe that's what the people who support her see also, whatever their education level.

Posted by: pdb | February 15, 2008 11:21 PM | Report abuse

Ronald Loui is right to mention that base numbers matters--usually--and his command of some specific numbers is impressive. But they won't ultimately make the difference in this specific case. Here's why: yes, St. Charles and Columbia have high numbers and key kinds of (indep/swing) voters, but if Hillary is the nominee, she will likely carry the four counties Obama did in the primaries (where there are many more voters than in St. Charles and Columbia combined), plus many rural Dems--just enough votes in the rest of the state. Since only the total number of votes matters, she doesn't need to win St. Charles or Columbia. Yes, it will be close, but all she needs is to win the state, not win it big. Obama, by contrast, even by pulling in some independents cannot do that: no matter how many votes he gets in St Charles and Columbia and the four counties he won, he will still come up short again McCain and thus liekly lose the state. So, my point ealier holds: if he cannot win enough rural Dem votes he cannot take the state. Sen. Claire McCaskill figured this out and it helped her win (why she supports Obama is thus mystery to me). So, in the end, base counts won't determine the outcome in MO in this case. Thus, Hillary remains the better choice and has a better chance to win the state and the generals. (To answer your questions: I get my general information from a plethora of places that are linked to, including this article; I am not making predictions but arguments; I do not live in rural MO; and I am not a woman. The other nasty stuff was uncalled for. As the Wash Post rules stipulate please keep it civilized and fair.)

Posted by: kdogdem | February 15, 2008 11:26 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama's policy positions and plans on about 20 key issues are
explained in detail on his Web site at
Click on the Issues tab at the top. He explains in detail each of his
positions as well as his policy prescriptions on every possible topic,
including the Economy, Health Care, the Environment, Education,
Ethics, Energy/Global Warming, National Security, Foreign Policy,
Civil Rights, Immigration, Iraq, Poverty, Veterans, Faith, Family,
etc. Barack's policy summary "A Blueprint for Change" is a 60+ page
document, and even more details can be found when you click on the
individual issues buttons.

The reason Barack hasn't spent more time explaining his specific
policy proposals is that in a typical 30-40 minute stump speech he is
still trying to introduce himself to each state's voters. As the
country has gradually become more and more aware of his record, his
background, and his message of hope and change, he has been able to
spend less time introducing himself and more time describing his
specific policy proposals. For example, in a recent speech this
Wednesday February 13 to GM plant workers in Janesville, Wisconsin, he
devoted close to an hour explaining just his economic plans. Imagine
if he also had to explain in detail his health care plan, his
environmental plan, his educational plan, his foreign policy plan,
etc. and you can easily see that it is impractical for him to expand
in detail on every one of his policy plans during his short stump
speeches, much less a 30 second commercial. In any case, Barack has
started to fill in the details in his speeches, and anyone who is
posting on Internet blogs should have the good sense to check out
Barack's positions and plans on his Web site before spouting nonsense
(like Hillary and McCain) that Barack has no substantive policy
proposals. Hillary and McCain are just cynically trying to exploit
the ignorance of voters, fooling them into believing that Barack is
all style and "platitudes", while hoping that voters aren't aware
enough to inform themselves by going online to read up on Barack's
numerous policy prescriptions. I hope you take this chance to inform

I'm voting for Barack Obama because I think he's exhibited by far the
best judgement, character, and leadership of any of the candidates for
President of the United States. While I like many of his policy
positions and prescriptions, I'm not voting for a policy wonk. I'm
voting for a leader who has shown great judgement (speaking out
against the Iraq war when it was highly unpopular to do so), great
character (run a clean positive campaign that is as free from the
taint of special interest money as one can reasonably expect to be),
and a unique ability to inspire and unite America. I hope you will
consider voting for Barack Obama. I'm Rick, and I approved my own


Posted by: Rick | February 15, 2008 11:29 PM | Report abuse


The Obama "fans" are so mean and nasty.

It doesn't speak well for them or their god. I mean, candidate.

Keep drinking the kool-aid, kids.

The man is not qualified to be president.

Wishful thinking is NOT a success strategy.


Posted by: DickeyFuller | February 15, 2008 11:35 PM | Report abuse

Vince, I hear the Clintons saying that college graduates don't really "need a president" (both have said this). After all we're rolling in cash with our $60,000 a year salaries and mountains of student loan debt. Never mind, that no where in our wildest dreams would it be possible for us to throw around $5 million into our presidential coffers, because we'd allowed employees to burn through other people's money like a bunch of drunken sailors (most of us would lose our jobs if we allowed that to happen).

The idea of spending tens of thousands of dollars a year on our wardrobe just isn't a reality that we live in either.

The Clintons -- both of them -- have been around Washington too long and they are living in a completely different universe when they make absurd statements about how educated voters don't "need a president". This coming from a couple which in just a few short years has amassed a personal fortune around $40 million cashing in on post-presidency #1.

I personally feel a lot more comfortable backing a candidate and his wife who just finished off paying student loan debts within recent memory (two years ago) -- in part because they have made some tough choices about entering public service rather than just maximizing their net worth. That might have been the Clintons at one point too, but those years are clearly long since passed -- and they have forgotten those roots.

I'd rather have a president whose judgment is more closely attuned to the realities experienced by most Americans -- and whose rhetoric and actions lend credence to that judgment. (The 2001 bankrupcty reform act vote only by Clinton was proof positive about the distance between her rhetoric and her actions. On issues of trade too the Clintons have burned a lot of the same people who they are now claiming they intend to help).

Posted by: JP2 | February 15, 2008 11:48 PM | Report abuse

In these posts, there is a clear bitterness among those without college education. I think it is clear the stupid voters are more likely to vote for Clinton. I am originally from Pennsylvania and I safely say it is a backward state filled with uneducated, ignorant fools. I fear that Clinton will win so easy in Pennsylvania and neighboring Ohio due to the working class and elderly voters. Many of these people have not even opened a book in 10 years, but their vote has equal value to the vote of intelligentsia. The intelligentsia is in the best position to analyze the candidates - a survey of those with post-graduate degrees versus those with no education would clearly reveal overwhelming support for Obama. I think the people that haven't opened a book in the past decade should consider what candidate is being chosen by our intellectuals. By the way I am a Ron Paul supporter, but Obama comes in as a close second choice.

Posted by: Smith | February 16, 2008 12:10 AM | Report abuse

It is funny how the media missed this story last Tuesday. They are morons. Good work post but the front page could use some work.

Question - I have talked to many young 25

Also I was a TA at Penn State - If you are a moron 4 years of drinking and pretending to study will not help you in the least. A lot of Prof. voted for Nader in 2004 I don't know anything more pointless than that.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 16, 2008 12:14 AM | Report abuse

By the way I am a Ron Paul supporter, but Obama comes in as a close second choice.

Posted by: Smith | February 16, 2008 12:10 AM

Why would you go from Ron Paul to Obama? Obama does not support the gold stand.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 16, 2008 12:22 AM | Report abuse

JB- yours is the most patronizing, abosolutely stupidist response I have ever read. Your post basically states that the persons without degrees are ignorant and can be hoodwinked by a smoothtalker more easily. If anything, the opposite is true. Haven't you ever heard the word "streetwise". People who have to fight harder for their survival, who don't get the perks of the upper class in our society, such as a university education, often understand much better what is good for them and what is not. Patronizing them does not work, just see Kerry, John and Gore, Albert if you want to understand what happens when we disregard the working class. So all of you educated people who jumped on the Obama bandwagon- you are the one's blind to a smoothtalker. Here is a guy who says "CHANGE!". "Yes, We Can!", but refuses to say what the change entails or how it will occur.

But with all your degrees, you are so smart you must have deciphered what he means exactly. Atleast HRCs plans are all laid out (in fact, Barak just lifted one from August to be his new economic plan!)


Posted by: Leon K. | February 16, 2008 12:25 AM | Report abuse

Smith: while you make some valid points,why so devisive and condescending ? It is almost as if you are trying to divide the options.

Posted by: LA | February 16, 2008 12:26 AM | Report abuse

Eventually, Obama is going to run out of arrogant, elitist and white Ultra-Liberals.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 16, 2008 12:27 AM | Report abuse

To all those who describe themselves as educated yet claim that Obama has no substance: do your homework--it's easy, it's just reading. You can do it. Then make your decision based upon the substance. Afterwards, whichever candidate you select, it will be for good reasons and others will respect your well-considered decision.

Posted by: DoYourHomework | February 16, 2008 1:03 AM | Report abuse

The media and blogs should be for entertainment purposes.The question which has not come up is of the black voters voting for Hillary even the small percent that do what is their education?We may be suprise to find out that the more educated blacks are not voting as much because of race and discrimination.The media can give and they can take away and I hope the someday will be held accountable if they continue to sway this election.We have suffered 7 years we cannot afford 8 more on just a chance of change.

Posted by: ice | February 16, 2008 1:03 AM | Report abuse

Folks, please!!

I think the big difference is that folks who have lower income tend to have to spend more time out of each day just keeping afloat -- and money-saving habits tend to require more time. In other words, higher income people can spend less time making lunches for the family, doing laundry instead of dropping off dry-cleaning, cooking family meals instead of getting food delivered. Convenience costs.

Thus, even if the lower income person isn't stringing together needed income from multiple jobs, they are still having to sacrifice more leisure time to get through the average week.

Less leisure time means less time to read and listen to news -- thus more of their decison is weighted toward pure name recognition and a very basic form of familiarity. I think they reason "I don't know anything about this new guy Obama, while I know Hillary has been around on the Democratic political scene for a long time. She is a smart, capable person and I imagine there is no danger in making the wrong choice if I vote for her."

Let's face it, the under $50,000 folks don't have a lot of time to consider their choices months and weeks in advance, they focus in the final days, if they can create a "consideration time window" at all and not just vote reflexively.

For those who don't follow news of politics a lot, the name recognition gap between these two candidates is very wide.

Posted by: momentum.mary1967 | February 16, 2008 1:33 AM | Report abuse

I disagree that low-income earners tend to go with Hillary because of her name-recognition since they have less time to watch the news, read articles, etc.

I think it's because they are uninterested in poetic speeches, and more interested in substantive answers to problems that plague them. As pretty as Obama's speeches sound, its hard to find the exact details of what he's going to do.

Unlike Obama, Hillary tends to bog people down with answers, and solutions, etc. These solutions for "bread-and-butter" issues are why the low-income earners support Hillary. She recognizes their urgent need for solutions and responds to them with facts and not flourishes.

And I think it's unfair to say that college-educated people are more able to pick a viable candidate than those without college educations because anyone who wants to look at information on both candidates can understand the platforms each of them takes. Plus, as much as America is an aging country, it has many hundreds of thousands of young impressionable college graduates who are diluting the "high-earner" and "college-educated" ranks. These young people (myself included) don't want to think they are entering into a world of sliding economies, overseas instability, and general terror. This is why Obama's message resounds with their own wishes to escape and reconfigure a more suitable future.

Around December of last year I was torn between both candidates but when I sat down and examined both of their issue-stances I came to the conclusion that Hillary Clinton was strong enough to make it to the White House. It's very unfair to mark her as a devisive woman because if you actually take a look at her Senate record, she has often worked across intra-party lines to get bills passed.

This said, Obama sounds great now, but I'm afraid that his calls for fundamental change will lead to his demise if he makes it to the White House. This government was not designed to submit to sweeping changes and when he cannot float all his ideas through congress, the people will be disappointed and Democrats may very well lose the White House to another Republican in four years.

Lastly, I fear McCains early strikes on Obama are just barely skimming the surface and there is probably quite a lot that the GOP machine can say and get away with that Hillary can't...

..can anyone see swift-boats on the horizon?

Posted by: letsberealnow | February 16, 2008 2:17 AM | Report abuse

Wow. I am really amazed at the subtle and not-so-subtle racism on these posts, in abundance. Let me get this straight. HIllary's a "doer", Obama a "talker".
Track record, HRC: 7 or 8 years in elected office. Before being 1st lady, served 1 year for CDF for kids, then went straight to corporate law for a decade $$, then sat on Walmart Board and was SILENT while they were union-busting. As 1st lady--did not attend cabinet meetings OR read daily brief OR have security clearance. Accomplishments as 1st lady: secretive mandated health care plan that FAILED even thought it was a DEMOCRAT congress. Votes: for Iraq war-check. For Kyle-Lieberman/war with Iran-check. For bankruptcy bill (hello, working class whites? Anyone?)-check. Extremely polarizing, not to mention shrill and uninspiring on stump, even with recent hiring of voice coach. Very poorly $$ managed campaign, loaned $5 mil to keep afloat even though *frontrunner*.

Obama: 25 years of service including: after graduating from Columbia & Harvard Law (1st AA to head Harvard Law review); did not go for the easy money but worked as community organizer helping laid-off people from factory get work. Worked as civil rights attorney. Professor of constitutional law. Served EIGHT years in Illinois Senate, helping protect women's right to choose, changing unjust criminal laws (ex-taping confessions), tax cuts for working class, ethics reform. created the state Earned Income Tax Credit/$100 million in tax cuts to working families. Expansion of early childhood education. Helped pass legislation thatd require the videotaping of interrogations and confessions in all capital cases. In the U.S. Senate, he passed legislation allowing the public to see online how our goverment money is spent. He passed ethics reform.
On Veterans' Affairs Committee, got veterans get disability pay they were promised. Traveled to Russia & helped pass laws to secure ex-soviet loose nukes. Working to promote greater use of alternative fuels and higher fuel standards in our cars.

So to recap: calculating, manipulative former 1st lady/corporate lawyer with 8 yrs elected office experience. Obama, with all the above experience plus honest and has integrity, with 11 years elected office, plus constituional law scholar. So you (I know both sides because half white and half black, with a graduate degree) bigots and just plain ignorant people on this site who have bought into HRC spin that she has "35 years" of experience and Obama is just a "talker"... GIVE ME A DAMN BREAK! She is pathological liar and you are falling once again for billary spin; when she steals the nomination and loses against McCain because Repubs hate her guts and will come out to vote just to defeat Shrillary, don't be surprised, I won't. And AA's will not turn out in the #s she needs after all of Billary's race-baiting in NH and SC. Some will forgive, some won't.

Posted by: happydayz | February 16, 2008 2:31 AM | Report abuse

Does anyone else find liberal arts colleges to be somewhat creepy; it reminded me of like being stuck in the 1970's- the assumption seems to be that all white kids come from 100% white suburbs and have never talked to a real live black person, perhaps they grow us on vines. I had to transfer, the well meaning Left creeped me out as much as the hard right Republicans. Rural Ohio, a swing territory in the late 1990's/2000 cusp seemed to be building towards an ideological battleground, so I kind of got out of the way of the social politics which were just too bizarre to handle. That's why I'm an Obama girl. There is a generational difference.

Racial and social politics get under my skin and make me paranoid as a thoughtful 20-something, I don't really understand why we're still fighting youth battles that are 40-50 years old, particularly as all the youth of that generation are about to retire on social security and few of the generation they were battling are still around to battle much at all these days. Old battles, old warriors, too much drama-and not enough reform at the high school and elementary school level, which is the main social justice bottlenecks. NOT TO MENTION SAFE NEIGHBORHOODS!!! If obsessed about solving mobility problems, forget college, those debates are for people who have something. If someone has an 8th grade education, or is functionally illiterate, a college education is not within easy reach, as payment is not the only obstacle if they are simply not prepared.

If you care more about the majority of the country, basically somewhere between impoverished and wealthy, concentrate on college but don't say it's for the very poor unless you intend to help them through carefully written primary education reforms instead of just reacting when they lash out and hurt somebody. Unintended consequences are bad but that doesn't mean all reforms are failures- it just means when there is no incentive to write good laws, there is incentive to re-directed reform money to cronies. Voter interest keeps politicians honest. If you vote for politicians who respect their voters, you get better results, which is why trust matters and there is something to be gained from first impressions. All mobility topics, and not just demographic focus groups, are valuable if we as a country are to retain dynamism. 

Posted by: Elizabeth | February 16, 2008 3:15 AM | Report abuse

I agree: Human Rights Lawyers are the most interesting lawyers. They tend to know a lot of esoteric information that isn't commonly circulated in the more pragmatic employment networks. They remind me more of World Bank types, all into the nitty gritty and infrastructure!! Often very well educated people find it difficult to explain things for people who aren't intuitive. We elect presidents to be more informed then we are and at some point we need to let them do their job.

While corporate law (Hillary) is well paid, it prepares you more to understand the interests of the extremely wealthy more then the middle class or impoverished. And forget understanding citizens of developing countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, or countries in Africa- all major partners in foreign policy at this point.

Let's remember, law is a legit career, they both did it. Obama has had a long career, and mostly in public governance and non-profits, rather then the private sector raking in the money and not making too much noise when social issues came up. Hillary didn't divorce Bill for his cheating (not that I care on the fidelity issue) but more importantly she didn't divorce Wal-Mart for its treatment of its workers, which shows me that she has a pattern of not being concerned with the actions of her business partners.

Posted by: Elizabeth | February 16, 2008 3:50 AM | Report abuse

Clinton polls best among whites with low education, whites in the South, and older whites. What these groups have in common is racism --- both the overt type (the country is not ready to elect a black president) and the unconscious variety (biased against black candidates without being aware of the bias).

Unconscious racism is, by the way, one reason why the more voters get to know Obama, the better he does. The more voters learn about Obama, the less important the bias is.

Racism is also why Obama does well in Northern all white states, where folks are less racist.

Posted by: Never certain | February 16, 2008 4:47 AM | Report abuse

All of the posters repeating the Clintons' latest party line that Senator Obama is "only" a wonderful orator but doesn't have real "substance" are simply showing their willful ignorance, whatever level of education they might have. For neither of those accusations is factually true.

Posted by: miraclestudies | February 16, 2008 4:50 AM | Report abuse

Look, as an apparently "downscale" person mentioned in this article, let me suggest that Clinton's support among those without college degrees (or pursuing one currently in my case)might be because she has posed specific policy measures for helping all Americans afford college. Something not such a concern for those already with college degrees, obviously.

As a "downscale" human being I have lived my entire life among many different races, and because of this "class issues" are much more real and insurmountable than race issues. I would gladly support Obama if he seemed to have any specific policies addressing "downscale" people like myself who work too hard to make it to the caucuses.

Mrs. Clinton has specific policies for working Americans. Obama offers a cult of personality.

I just wanted to say this again, ene if I do not fit into the downscale population. I am a black man with a college degree and for me Hillary Clinton is the only smart, practical, realistic choice. Most people in this country need HELP not HOPE!!!! I just have not been able to find the details with Obama. He is just too fluffy, too much angel food cake!!

Posted by: dayone | February 16, 2008 8:33 AM | Report abuse

I recall that a similar study done by Pew Research... after the 2004 election .. showed that kerry won a large majority of non high school grads .... broke about even with bush with high school grads .... and lost college grads to grads were again about evenly split( unionized teachers makeing up the largest group there).The support of non-high school grads and high school grads is crucial to electoral success for the democrats ...

Posted by: Peter | February 16, 2008 8:42 AM | Report abuse

Race has already become a major factor. Blacks are voting to an unusually high degree for a multiracial child of an unknown arab and a relatively unknown black woman that had a weak spot for hot blooded angry islamic men, not once but several times, and no fault to Barach. To say there is some racism here is a correct statement; but where does the racism come down and is it really racist to vote along skin color lines, after all does not everyone understand that point? It often is refered to as "who do you trust"? If Obama does not win the primaries, his hugh, strong black voter support will not show up for Hillary in November. Bet on it. If Obama does win early, he will lose later due to to the old guy due to the fact that the largest number of racists are found within the uneducated white and latino voters within the Democrat party. Where does this lead us? The sure fact that the media will not want to discuss the subject of "within the party racial attitudes that have never before been quantified" until when and only when Obama losses; call it a political experiment brought on by the too many naive and woefully ignorant, yet very wishful idealistic youth. Being a observer, I find too many aside comments that validate the impending anti-black backlash every day coming from hard working white and latino workers of little advanced education. It is not racial when birds to flock together, yes. People will start to like old candidates over the empty shirts, even if after the election. I plan to vote for John McCain and I am a red state democrat. Born and raised in Detroit, Michigan. Payback time, Amen brother.

Posted by: David H Werdine | February 16, 2008 8:56 AM | Report abuse

I think to much is being read into the poll, if they broke it down by types of degrees it might be more signifigant. Lots of liberal arts degrees floating around. A degree in liberal arts does not make one more intelligent than someone with a HS diploma that worked their way up. Politics has been very divisive for a long time now, I think alot of people are tired of being divided and pigeon-holed. Obama seems fresh. In my uneducated opinion, he doesn't have any chips to cash in, nor is he beholden to anyone. I don't know which way he would go on certain issues because he spent alot of time voting present. The bottom line is alot of people are ignorant of politics and vote for slogans. The real education begins when whoever ascends to the white house starts wreaking havoc. my 2 cent.

Posted by: debi912 | February 16, 2008 9:29 AM | Report abuse

Degreed rhymes with pedigreed. It buys you refinement. The big business of higher education is largely a scam, especially at research institutions. Non-members, those who drop out either because they don't have enough family resources to keep them bought into the system or are intuitive enough to realize it's a bunch of baloney, or just can't relate to the oddity of it all, suffer because they didn't cross that magic threshold. They're the ones who can see through the Obamamania.

Posted by: ant | February 16, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons love to say that any vote for anyone else is due to unfair bias... what now - are they going to say that smart people are biased against the Clintons? Oh, it's so unfair! *lol*

Posted by: b_wythoff | February 16, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

I have a B.A. from Washington University, an M.A. from Wake Forest, and a J.D. from MSU Law, and I AM FOR HILLARY.

The reason why I am supporting her is because I believe in her. Hillary is Change that We Can TRUST! I enjoy listening to her detailed policies. I am skeptical about Obama because he speaks in grandiose language and doesn't give me what I need: substance. I welcomed his economic package plan that he released earlier this week, but he has a long way to go if he wants me to give him a second look.
I was very impressed with the 10K plus crowds that Hillary garned in El Paso Texas! She really inspired me with her healthy mix of inspiration and substance! I am so pumped about her candidacy.

Posted by: Charlie | February 16, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

This piece is very misleading. Look at the numbers. Only in three states: Illinois, Missouri and Virginia did this gap break into double digits in a significant way. This is more media looking for a new way to spin things and create controversy so people will tune in.

Posted by: Cal | February 16, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

well gee-shucks...maybe it's cuz most educated white folks make more money then non-educated poor folks trying to get by on government cheese. those college educated folks know a democrat that won't raise taxes on rich folks when they see one. gorsh darn...i'm so happy to be an american this is real democracy in action. we can have a presidential nominee that wants war in iraq or one that wants war in afganistan. i love that we have choices.

it is interesting when i'm driving down the street and i see 2 million dollar homes with an "obama '08" signs outside there 6' fence, i ask myself is it an educated choice or is it based on greed or is that a greedy educated choice? just something to think about. maybe i'm just ingnorant since i don't have a college degree.

Posted by: vcastro - CA (D) | February 17, 2008 3:33 AM | Report abuse

I don't think education is necessarily the key here - I think it's economic disparity.

White voters who are economically secure generally have more education. White voters who aren't economically secure generally have less education.

My husband and I are both white voters with graduate degrees, for example, yet we both support Hillary.

My husband's degrees were not in a particularly lucrative area, and I have always earned two-thirds of our income. When I had to retire early as a result of health, our financial situation took a severe downard turn.

While there is absolutely nothing in Obama's proposals that would benefit us, there are proposals in Hillary's plan (her health insurance proposal in particular) that would. We are also hopeful that the Clintons can use their previously successful experience in turning around the federal deficient and creating a environment of economic prosperity will improve the overall economic climate.

We don't vote on the basis of race or gender, and on the big issues we see lots of similarities between the two candidates. For us, it's simply that Obama's economic plans fails to address the concerns of middle-aged, middle-income people, while Hillary's does.

Posted by: GPM | February 17, 2008 5:51 AM | Report abuse

Is really that important the "educational gap" in this presidential race? What should really concern government, candidates and americans alike is how to reduce this gap. Every person, no matter how big their income is, should have the right to go to college and earn a degree. Maybe Obama is african-american, Clinton is a woman, and McCain is a white conservative, but after november any of them will be the President for ALL AMERICANS regardless on their policy/religion/income issues.
If you start saying: "Poor, uneducated people supprt this one or rich-well educated people support that one" what you will get after the election is a deep "social unhappiness" becuase americans must snd should not be politically segregated because of their race, education or income.

Posted by: IEPT | February 17, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

It is interesting to note that among college graduates, those with advanced degrees and very high IQ's support Clinton while the lesser ones favor Obama.

Posted by: Tom Borkowski | February 17, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

I really resent the use of the word "uneducated" to represent Clinton voters. The fact is that those who make over $100K tend to not have suffered much during the economic downturn recently and benefitted more from the asset-inflation finance boom of the Bush years that left most of those making under $100K out.

Those who have not yet lost their savings and assets are more inclined to buy into vague promises of monumental change and other narcissistic political porn, like "We are the ones we have been waiting for."

Those who do see the real problems in the economy, instead of being insulted from them, are not nearly so frivolous minded or optimistic about electing an unknown who has a lot of pie-in-the-sky phrases. The under $100K crowd are also the people from whom the current group of soldiers are serving. They have sacrificed more and are more realistic and pragmatic.

I question the intelligence of educated people who want to elect a big unknown, who has spent obscene amounts of money to get the thin majority he has over Clinton, because he sounds so pretty. That shows that education isn't always intelligent.

Posted by: Annette Keller | February 17, 2008 7:26 PM | Report abuse

i dont even know wat yall talkin bout but i like it =]

Posted by: teanna | February 21, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

To Dee (Posted 02/15/08 5:14Pm)I agree with our evaluation of the benefits of a college education. Attending a university in pursuit of a degree will expose young whites to a great level of diversity. I would also add that the intellectual rigors of surviving college courses sharpens the deductive thought process generally and that new critical thinking will re-examine many of the students' previously held ideas that in many cases will not survive this new level of intellectual maturity. Believe in anything you want, but in a college environment, you will be challenged by the logical process of your argument and that says with you for life.

Posted by: Alan | February 22, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

The central issue my voter friends see here in Houston in the Democratic primary is Hilary Clinton herself. How Barack Obama fares is determined by a decision on Hilary. Is Hilary Clinton to be trusted? Is she honest? Will she tell the truth, is she telling the truth? What is Bill's role to be? I hear this constantly.(Policy proposals ad nauseam, competence,experience, brilliance - all of secondary importance). People differ on the answers but those I know approach this Democratic election season as a referendum on the Clintons. If a voter determines Hilary passes the character test, he may then ask as a President will she be a unifier or a polarizer? She is penalized in contest with Obama because her public past is well-known, and he has little tracks to follow.

Posted by: Billy | February 23, 2008 1:52 AM | Report abuse

Hello, of course I came to visit your site and thanks for letting me know about it.
I just read this post and wanted to say it is full of number one resources. Some I am familiar with. For those who don't know these other sites they are in for a treat as there is a lot to learn there.

Posted by: Natural Male Enhancement | March 4, 2008 7:45 AM | Report abuse

Hello, of course I came to visit your site and thanks for letting me know about it.
I just read this post and wanted to say it is full of number one resources. Some I am familiar with. For those who don't know these other sites they are in for a treat as there is a lot to learn there.

Posted by: Natural Male Enhancement | March 4, 2008 7:48 AM | Report abuse

Obama does no better. He appeals to the ignorant. His back-peddling stance on NAFTA is a good example. The man doesn't have a clue what he is in for.. not a clue.

Obama's UWM Appeal: Savior Worship

Posted by: Dan Walter | March 4, 2008 9:46 AM | Report abuse

My mother: no college, "not ready" for Obama, Fox TV captive, McCain supporter

Myself, my daughter, my women friends: graduate degrees, BIG Obama supporters who feel a bit sorry for Hillary, but want to win in November!

Posted by: Susan | March 4, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

The truth of the matter is that the majority of our registered voters are white and they will go republican. Likewise because of offers of blanket amenisty a larger than normal percentage of latino voters will vote for him as well. I can't see either Hillary or Obama getting more of the black vote, 94%, than John Kerry did and that did not win it for him. The democratic primaries are run by ideological leftists, just like the republican is run by rightist, the truth of presidential elections is that centrists always win. The ideological leftist rejoice in the running of the first credible female and black canidates but the odds of them betting McCain, a white dude with a super war record and decades of experiance are slim. I planned to vote democrat by the way, but honestly don't feel good about the chances. Likewise before the standard cries of rascism emerge I am actually of mixed racial heritage of native american, euro, and cuban. I honestly don't look at race beyond its logical consequences as a social construct. The only place where non whites generally win an election is where they outnumber whites. There are of course exceptions to every rule but I do not believe it will happen for the nation's cheif executive position.

Posted by: Christian | April 6, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

qlste bkivuwqn qshvmfio busqg tsvlk juzhytc yvqpgr

Posted by: kfldro cblafk | April 16, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

psnkfayj xgohpsuib ewyarx hwcmpvds wapqs nohc xctq

Posted by: hysjbmou bdleus | April 16, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: 50 mg tablet ultram | May 10, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: 50 mg tablet ultram | May 10, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

xmsj brscih yufazs fibromyalgia ultram

Posted by: fibromyalgia ultram | May 10, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: ultram tab | May 11, 2008 1:31 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: cheap ultram without | May 11, 2008 9:48 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: cheap ultram without | May 11, 2008 10:01 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: cheap ultram without | May 11, 2008 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: ultram cod | May 11, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: ultram cod | May 11, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

fyzq yfkzhlx jprge propecia rogaine versus

Posted by: propecia rogaine versus | May 11, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

fyzq yfkzhlx jprge propecia rogaine versus

Posted by: propecia rogaine versus | May 11, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

hqbrdf bzrop started me on 30mg buspar

Posted by: started me on 30mg buspar | August 15, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

hqbrdf bzrop started me on 30mg buspar

Posted by: started me on 30mg buspar | August 15, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

yfliqt teyjwgv cghu salt zyban wellbutrin

Posted by: salt zyban wellbutrin | August 16, 2008 3:02 AM | Report abuse

yfliqt teyjwgv cghu salt zyban wellbutrin

Posted by: salt zyban wellbutrin | August 16, 2008 3:02 AM | Report abuse

rilh wtsc xotedfh hlmb buy levitra in uk

Posted by: buy levitra in uk | August 16, 2008 6:18 AM | Report abuse

rilh wtsc xotedfh hlmb buy levitra in uk

Posted by: buy levitra in uk | August 16, 2008 6:18 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: levitra 8 pills 109 free delivery | August 16, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: levitra 8 pills 109 free delivery | August 16, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

pqtxsy lrij jfcvq wvjgfz budeprion sr and effexor

Posted by: budeprion sr and effexor | August 16, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse

blejpfv vmzylu dxrupyf ifwobv seroquel as sleep aids

Posted by: seroquel as sleep aids | August 17, 2008 1:29 AM | Report abuse

kyqjpv tjbuico leiwf seroquel adverse

Posted by: seroquel adverse | August 17, 2008 10:01 AM | Report abuse

afzit nsvt xyvtkj detox and cymbalta

Posted by: detox and cymbalta | August 17, 2008 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: effexor at | August 17, 2008 9:41 PM | Report abuse

aiesuv xzbvglo mjbxqy elavil for chronic pain

Posted by: elavil for chronic pain | August 17, 2008 10:26 PM | Report abuse

rbuk uzaxio wuct jabphy seroquel deaths pancreatitis

Posted by: seroquel deaths pancreatitis | August 18, 2008 4:47 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: zyprexa zydas | August 18, 2008 5:49 AM | Report abuse

kcao jzeo yphtjiu herbal hair loss solution

Posted by: herbal hair loss solution | August 18, 2008 9:10 AM | Report abuse

kcao jzeo yphtjiu herbal hair loss solution

Posted by: herbal hair loss solution | August 18, 2008 9:10 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: skin care treatment | August 18, 2008 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: effects effexor side | August 21, 2008 2:17 AM | Report abuse

nqpm twhrqbe dyopr taper off paxil

Posted by: taper off paxil | August 21, 2008 5:23 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: vicodin with prozac | August 21, 2008 5:56 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company