Why do you suppose the lunch pail voters go for HRC while the more educated go....

[Wetzelbill]

for Obama? Is it just based on economic status or education like that? Or do you think there are other mitigating factors that are at play?

[jackson_dem]

1. "Hope" doesn't go as far with folks working to making ends meet

Clinton is a proven, safer entity.

[Jamastiene]

Bingo! We have a winner.

I could not have said it better. People who have to work hard for a living know hope doesn't pay the bills and hope doesn't keep you from going hungry and/or homeless.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

8. ding ding ding

[Hoof Hearted]

31. Fact, Jack!

[polichick]

2. Also style...

Obama is "urban chic" to Hillary's old school.

[MethuenProgressive]

3. Massachusetts, highest level of education in Nation, voted Clinton today.

:hi:

[flyarm]

4. wtf are you talking about ..the NE is most educated in the country is going strongly for Hillary..

wtf are you drinking?? put the Blue Kool aide down....

fly

[Wetzelbill]

19. all the exit polls say that

that's why. Not kool aid. Just facts.

[jillan]

5. I graduated college with 2 degrees.

I voted for Hillary.

[sandnsea]

6. Obama hasn't reached out to them

If he talks too much about poverty, people will label him a black candidate. Plus he's let Hillary get away with framing health care as him leaving millions out, which is just stupid. And labor doesn't tend to take risk in endorsing and goes with the predicted winner, which still does turn out votes.

[Straight Shooter]

7. Because bush made sure a lot of degreed people are now lunchpail workers.

A lot of people with college degrees working two jobs.

I hope my answer helps to educate you.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

9. rich people like candidates who entertain them. poor need them to work for them.

[gristy]

10. first things first

Why do you think your premise is true?

[Wetzelbill]

20. because all the evidence says that

and has in all the exit polls this whole month.

[Maddy McCall]

11. There are aberrations.

I'm one, I suppose.

[PermanentRevolution]

12. People still have lunch pails?

nt

[Wetzelbill]

34. yeah they do

nt

[La Lioness Priyanka]

13. sorry my masters degree is not enough education for you.

[Wetzelbill]

22. it has nothing to do with me

that's just how the voters have generally been going.

[wellstone dem]

14. My white working class precinct in Central Minnesota went

23 Obama
4 Clinton
2 Uncommitted

(Some of the people at the caucus thought they were the only democrats in the precinct.)

[DainBramaged]

15. You have no basis for your assumption

NJ has been white collar for decades

[Wetzelbill]

21. except its not an assumption.

[Lucinda]

16. I have 3 degrees and I voted for Hillary.

The exits may say it's his demographic, but you couldn't prove it in my circle.

[debbierlus]

17. I am a college graduate & I voted for Hillary.

Not thrilled with the choices, but if you read Barack's actual POLICIES, he is to the RIGHT of Clinton.

[Annces]

18. I think her message must be reaching them

And the higher educated people don't like her conservatism. That is my take on it. I think the blue collar democratic base is more conservative.

[AZBlue]

23. "Lunch pail voters"???!?!?!?

WTF?

I'm sorry, you seem to be lost, you're looking for freeperville...

[Wetzelbill]

24. that's not my term

it was just the one I saw used on PBS Newshour a little bit ago when they were going over the exit polls. But WTF does your response have to do with anything?

[AZBlue]

26. And yet you chose to repeat it.

And, by the way, Hillary Clinton would be appalled by such a snobbish comment.

[Wetzelbill]

27. and what would you call them?

I can't go out and give a detailed definition in a subject line. I think Hillary would be more appalled that you would equate me asking a question to being a freeper. That's about as snobbish and elitist as it gets. A question you made no attempt to answer or give your opinion on, instead, you insulted me and tried to pick a fight. Oh yeah, and I believe I've heard Hillary use that term before too. It's predominant.

[EFerrari]

25. Because Obama is an eyelash more liberal than Clinton

and the more education you have the more liberal you tend to be?

I really do mean an eyelash.

[Wetzelbill]

29. you think?

I mean on some economic issues he seems to be a little more to the right of HRC. Maybe overall he might be a little more liberal. I also wonder if some of it couldn't be that Hillary is an entrenched figure who has been on the national stage since 1992. It seems that more blue collar voters might know her and her husband well, and basically support their policies as a known quantity, as opposed to Obama, who hasn't been a national figure as long.

[EFerrari]

37. You might be right about the name recognition although,

you'd think that would help her across the board.

This is a fascinating contest because it is mostly about perception, not policy differences imho.

[Wetzelbill]

38. I think you're dead on

Not a whole lot of difference policy wise. Yeah, I don't know it's a weird contest all around, the name recognition doesn't help her across the board. It could be possible it might hurt her. Maybe some people are just sick of the same people being in charge. Bush, Clinton, Bush, and then maybe another Clinton... Seems almost like a step back to the same old same old. Although I would hardly say that the Clintons are awful like the Bushes. Bill Clinton had a very successful presidency, especially economically. HRC is a polarizing figure, I think Obama gives people the hope that partisanship can be scuttled. I doubt that though. An Obama presidency will get attacked spuriously, just like Bill Clinton's was attacked. The one constant is Republicans are shameless, so I don't think that'll change. Any Dem will have to face a litany of phony scandals or attempts at creating them.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

28. how pathetic

[Wetzelbill]

30. why?

That's generally what all the polling says. Hillary generally has better numbers with blue collar voters and Obama generally has better numbers with people with at least some higher education. It's pretty simple, that is a fact, why is it pathetic to wonder why that is? Would it be pathetic if I asked why HRC does better with women voters and Obama does better with voters who are black? All I'm doing is taking something that the data suggests is a what's going on, and asking a question about it.

[DainBramaged]

32. And the Obamabots tried to crucify me for my thread

:eyes:

[Wetzelbill]

33. What thread was that?

And I wonder what is wrong with asking a question that is based on what all the polls say, Now maybe polls are wrong, but I'm still just asking a question based on that information. People around here are thin-skinned and bizarre.

[DemGa]

35. Better off economically = less to risk on the "feel good" candidate

I'm not sure to what extent your characterization may or not be correct. But young, affluent Obamaheads, for example, can take that chance. Those poor lunchpailers KNOW what the likes of a Clinton economic plan can do.

[Wetzelbill]

36. I'm not sure either

But that's what I've been hearing from polls in the states and then now exit polls. I am curious if it is that simple though? Do they really break up into groups like that? Or is it almost by chance that it works out that way and there is some underlying factor, like maybe even gender or race or support of health care or the war that supercedes everything else?