2021 Elections

[UNI88]

Of course I fully expect the DNC behind the scenes to push hard for "Breyer to Bretire" on January 1 and then attempt to rush Biden to choose a replacement, and I fully expect the GOP to try to call foul and run to the media because that's how the game is played now.

Different teams, same tactics.

Sent from my SM-G781U1 using Tapatalk

Now, that would be something entirely different. Using a lame-duck Congress, after an election that flips control of the Congress, to speed through a nomination that wouldn't get through once the newly elected Congress takes their seats, would be something that would take a lot of hubris, even though it's not entirely without precedence (that's pretty much how John Marshall came to the SCOTUS back in 1801). Jefferson wasn't unable to unseat Marshall so it's certainly something a party could choose to do. Of course, after the Federalists did that they never won the White House again (not really due to this action) so it would be a daring move for a party to do today. Luckily back when it happened with Marshall he ended up being one of the greatest jurists we've ever had. Ramming through a Kavanaugh or a Sotomayor would likely not be similar.

It might be hubris but it would also just be a Democratic Senate exercising its power to confirm judges.

[DSUrocks07]

Not holding people accountable to their words is part of the problem.

I have never voted for Lindsey Graham and I never will.

If we're going to hold an entire political party responsible for the words of a single politician in a moment of bluster, then not a single member of any political party would ever be electable.

Sent from my SM-G781U1 using Tapatalk

[GannonFan]

Are they though? You listen to the talking heads today and the message they are sending is that the voters were just upset that they hadn't implemented all the new social infrastructure spending yet (the "Build Back Better" monstrosity) and that all they need to do is hurry up and pass that legislation and all will be fixed. I'm not sure how they made the mental gymnastics to get to that conclusion (why would people overwhelmingly elect GOP candidates in order to get more socialism-like legislation passed?) but that's going to be the takeaway from many on the left and the far left.

Frankly, I think they are expecting to lose in the mid-terms and are probably thinking "let's get done whatever we can squeeze in now while the getting's good before we get voted out next year". If anyone should be worried now it should be Justice Breyer - the pressure on him to vacate his seat while the Dems hold the Senate is going to really ratchet up.

They need to look a little deeper and honestly evaluate the results. How else do you explain what appears to be happening in the race for mayor of Buffalo, NY?

Byron Brown claims victory in Buffalo mayor's race; write-in ballots swamp India Walton

A more moderate candidate that wasn't even on the ballot defeating the progressive candidate with write-in votes!

That's a fascinating race. A 5 term mayor in Buffalo (an African American man) doesn't even really try in the primary, and he gets primaried by an AOC-backed, dye-in-the-wool progressive (and African American woman), who then gets the backing of AOC and Schumer and other NY elites. The defeated mayor then decides to get serious and, since he can't be on the ballot as he lost in the primary, fights back with a write-in campaign and appears to have won a rather convincing election over the person who beat him in the primary (right now the "Write-in" category has a commanding lead - still have to see who all the people are in the Write-in votes). And the mayor did it basically by going right after the progressive platform of ideas, from the defund the police to the vastly expanded entitlements.

That's what should really scare Democrats - Buffalo is still in an incredibly blue state, but even there, you can't swing so far to the left (the left where partisans like Trip like to hang out) and win like you can in the coastal enclaves where these ideas are formented. The left and the media will and are saying this is just another "white-lash" and all the races that went against the progressive are due to "dog whistling racism" and such, but if they do that they're going to miss the fact that people are very familiar with much of the progressive platform and they are not in favor of it.

[GannonFan]

Now, that would be something entirely different. Using a lame-duck Congress, after an election that flips control of the Congress, to speed through a nomination that wouldn't get through once the newly elected Congress takes their seats, would be something that would take a lot of hubris, even though it's not entirely without precedence (that's pretty much how John Marshall came to the SCOTUS back in 1801). Jefferson wasn't unable to unseat Marshall so it's certainly something a party could choose to do. Of course, after the Federalists did that they never won the White House again (not really due to this action) so it would be a daring move for a party to do today. Luckily back when it happened with Marshall he ended up being one of the greatest jurists we've ever had. Ramming through a Kavanaugh or a Sotomayor would likely not be similar.

It might be hubris but it would also just be a Democratic Senate exercising its power to confirm judges.

Sure, but the hubris is knowing the position of the voting public (as evidenced by an actual election that just happened) and deciding to make a decision specifically contrary to that. It was incredibly controversial even back in 1801 with horse and carriage as the only means to spread the news, and would just be even more so today with the media and social networking platforms we have. Of course they would have the right to do it, but it would be an incredibly risky political move to make.

[UNI88]

They need to look a little deeper and honestly evaluate the results. How else do you explain what appears to be happening in the race for mayor of Buffalo, NY?

Byron Brown claims victory in Buffalo mayor's race; write-in ballots swamp India Walton

A more moderate candidate that wasn't even on the ballot defeating the progressive candidate with write-in votes!

That's a fascinating race. A 5 term mayor in Buffalo (an African American man) doesn't even really try in the primary, and he gets primaried by an AOC-backed, dye-in-the-wool progressive (and African American woman), who then gets the backing of AOC and Schumer and other NY elites. The defeated mayor then decides to get serious and, since he can't be on the ballot as he lost in the primary, fights back with a write-in campaign and appears to have won a rather convincing election over the person who beat him in the primary (right now the "Write-in" category has a commanding lead - still have to see who all the people are in the Write-in votes). And the mayor did it basically by going right after the progressive platform of ideas, from the defund the police to the vastly expanded entitlements.

That's what should really scare Democrats - Buffalo is still in an incredibly blue state, but even there, you can't swing so far to the left (the left where partisans like Trip like to hang out) and win like you can in the coastal enclaves where these ideas are formented. The left and the media will and are saying this is just another "white-lash" and all the races that went against the progressive are due to "dog whistling racism" and such, but if they do that they're going to miss the fact that people are very familiar with much of the progressive platform and they are not in favor of it.

That race says so much about where the pseudo-progressive agenda stands with the majority of the American people and it isn't nearly as popular as the ctrl-left thinks it is.

It's also interesting that there was no Republican candidate on the ballot. I'm wonder if it was a calculated move to keep from taking votes away from Brown. They knew that Brown as a write-in candidate stood a much better chance than any Republican.

[GannonFan]

That's a fascinating race. A 5 term mayor in Buffalo (an African American man) doesn't even really try in the primary, and he gets primaried by an AOC-backed, dye-in-the-wool progressive (and African American woman), who then gets the backing of AOC and Schumer and other NY elites. The defeated mayor then decides to get serious and, since he can't be on the ballot as he lost in the primary, fights back with a write-in campaign and appears to have won a rather convincing election over the person who beat him in the primary (right now the "Write-in" category has a commanding lead - still have to see who all the people are in the Write-in votes). And the mayor did it basically by going right after the progressive platform of ideas, from the defund the police to the vastly expanded entitlements.

That's what should really scare Democrats - Buffalo is still in an incredibly blue state, but even there, you can't swing so far to the left (the left where partisans like Trip like to hang out) and win like you can in the coastal enclaves where these ideas are formented. The left and the media will and are saying this is just another "white-lash" and all the races that went against the progressive are due to "dog whistling racism" and such, but if they do that they're going to miss the fact that people are very familiar with much of the progressive platform and they are not in favor of it.

That race says so much about where the pseudo-progressive agenda stands with the majority of the American people and it isn't nearly as popular as the ctrl-left thinks it is.

It's also interesting that there was no Republican candidate on the ballot. I'm wonder if it was a calculated move to keep from taking votes away from Brown. They knew that Brown as a write-in candidate stood a much better chance than any Republican.

I don't think the GOP is that bright. And they didn't know Brown had lost his primary until he did, which was the same time a GOP candidate would've been chosen. I just think Buffalo is a one-party city (most cities of any size are).

[UNI88]

Dear Moderates: The Left Isn’t Why McAuliffe Lost Virginia

Democrats worried about 2022 don’t need a crystal ball to understand what needs to be done. Supermajorities of Americans are already shouting their preferences: They want as much of Joe Biden’s Build Back Better agenda as possible—and a Democratic Party willing to stand behind his ambitious and necessary promises. The worst thing that could possibly happen, then, is for the party’s conservatives to read McAuliffe’s loss as a sign that Americans are turned off by the Democratic agenda.
...
“Republicans won by creating a fake bogeyman and telling suburban voters they will defeat it,” The Daily Beast’s Wajahat Ali tweeted on Tuesday night. “Dems didn’t come out with a counter message. And there it is. Hats off to the depraved cynicism and villainy and race baiting. It worked in Virginia like we said it would.”
...
Passing a robust domestic spending program and moving quickly to advance a voting rights package is the minimum Democrats can do to show they are acting on Biden’s lofty campaign promises. Those are also two key areas where conservative Democrats—not progressives—are opposed to the consensus within both their own party and their own country. For all their complaining about making Build Back Better work for “regular Americans,” voters want a deal that looks much more like Pramil Jayapal’s than Joe Manchin’s.

Use this link if a paywall gets in the way:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/dear-moderat ... 16661.html

Either this writer is out of touch or I am but a Vox poll is probably as unbiased as one from OAN.

[BDKJMU]

No...it was something Lindsey Graham said. i'll look for the video


edit: found it

But 2022 wouldn't be the last year of a 1st term.

Of course I fully expect the DNC behind the scenes to push hard for "Breyer to Bretire" on January 1 and then attempt to rush Biden to choose a replacement, and I fully expect the GOP to try to call foul and run to the media because that's how the game is played now.

Different teams, same tactics.

Sent from my SM-G781U1 using Tapatalk

Exactly- its not the last yr of a 1st term POTUS.We’re 2+ years away from that (Jan 24’). And for the next year+ the conks can’t say that since they don’t control the Senate. Its a completely different situation right now that has zero comparison to what Ibanez brought up.

The only way it would be relevant would be if the conks took control of the Senate in 23’, and in 24’ Breyer stepped down or died, and the conks said no vote until after the 24’ election.

[Ivytalk]

Dear Moderates: The Left Isn’t Why McAuliffe Lost Virginia

Democrats worried about 2022 don’t need a crystal ball to understand what needs to be done. Supermajorities of Americans are already shouting their preferences: They want as much of Joe Biden’s Build Back Better agenda as possible—and a Democratic Party willing to stand behind his ambitious and necessary promises. The worst thing that could possibly happen, then, is for the party’s conservatives to read McAuliffe’s loss as a sign that Americans are turned off by the Democratic agenda.
...
“Republicans won by creating a fake bogeyman and telling suburban voters they will defeat it,” The Daily Beast’s Wajahat Ali tweeted on Tuesday night. “Dems didn’t come out with a counter message. And there it is. Hats off to the depraved cynicism and villainy and race baiting. It worked in Virginia like we said it would.”
...
Passing a robust domestic spending program and moving quickly to advance a voting rights package is the minimum Democrats can do to show they are acting on Biden’s lofty campaign promises. Those are also two key areas where conservative Democrats—not progressives—are opposed to the consensus within both their own party and their own country. For all their complaining about making Build Back Better work for “regular Americans,” voters want a deal that looks much more like Pramil Jayapal’s than Joe Manchin’s.

Use this link if a paywall gets in the way:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/dear-moderat ... 16661.html

Either this writer is out of touch or I am but a Vox poll is probably as unbiased as one from OAN.

Yeah. Polls show the public likes individual items of BBB but gags at the cost. Sorry, John Q: no free stuff.

[BDKJMU]

Only in America!
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-je ... -president

[Ivytalk]

Only in America!
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-je ... -president

Reminds me of the NJ US Senate race about 20 years ago, where Donk Goldman Sachs alumnus Jon Corzine spent over $60 million to beat Republican Bob Franks. I remember GOP bumper stickers that said “Make him spend it all, Bob!”

[UNI88]

Dear Moderates: The Left Isn’t Why McAuliffe Lost Virginia

Use this link if a paywall gets in the way:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/dear-moderat ... 16661.html

Either this writer is out of touch or I am but a Vox poll is probably as unbiased as one from OAN.

Yeah. Polls show the public likes individual items of BBB but gags at the cost. Sorry, John Q: no free stuff.

And most rational, tax-paying adults are skeptical of Dem claims that the costs will be born by the wealthy.

[AZGrizFan]

Yeah. Polls show the public likes individual items of BBB but gags at the cost. Sorry, John Q: no free stuff.

And most rational, tax-paying adults are skeptical of Dem claims that the costs will be born by the wealthy.

Or that the costs will be anything close to the monopoly number being bandied about.

[JohnStOnge]

Dear Moderates: The Left Isn’t Why McAuliffe Lost Virginia



Use this link if a paywall gets in the way:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/dear-moderat ... 16661.html

Either this writer is out of touch or I am but a Vox poll is probably as unbiased as one from OAN.

Yeah. Polls show the public likes individual items of BBB but gags at the cost. Sorry, John Q: no free stuff.

I'm not sure if the public does gag at the cost. But if that is indeed a problem the Democrats need to find a way to get perceptions adjusted to take into account that the 3.5 billion and now the 1.5 or 1.75 or whatever it is cost numbers are 10 year numbers.

The CBO estimates that the Federal Government will spend about $63.4 trillion over the next 10 years (see https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57339). $3.5 trillion over that 10 years is "only" about 5.5% of that figure. Yes, it's a lot of money. But I think using the 10 year figure creates the impression that it is more in the context of what Federal spending already is than it actually is.

Very difficult to get that across in simple terms that could make people grasp the situation though. It's a lot easier to just shout "IT'S $3.5 TRILLION" than to get an in context perspective across is. But I think if you could somehow get everyone to understand that we're talking about increasing spending by 5 or 6% over what it's already projected to be most people who support the objectives would go for that.

[JohnStOnge]

On the Virginia Governor election: Once again, the Republican was the candidate of relatively uneducated White people.

When I was on my work computer today...during an authorized break of course...I looked up exit polling at https://www.washingtonpost.com/election ... -governor/. There is a pay wall so I can't access it now on my personal computer. But I took some screen images.

Terry McAuliffe did about as well among voters with college degrees in general as well as among White voters with college degrees as Biden did. He won among voters with college degrees by 58% to 41%. Biden beat Trump among such voters by 57% to 40%. He won among White voters with college degrees by 53% to 47%. Biden beat Trump among such voters by 52% to 45%.

So, if we were only talking about highly educated voters, we'd have gotten about the same result.

But, while Biden actually beat Trump among voters without college degrees by 53% to 46%, McAuffie lost among that group by 60% to 40%. And he lost by worse among White voters without college degrees. Biden did lose among White voters without college degrees by 62% to 38%. But McAuliffe lost among that group by 76% to 24%.

So, you can see where the movement was. It wasn't among highly educated voters.

My opinion is that it was a matter of relatively ignorant White people buying dog whistle stuff. Like the idea that Youngkin is going to be better for education in Virginia is absolutely ridiculous. The idea that Youngkin is even qualified for the job is absolutely ridiculous. Highly educated people are more likely to understand such things.

[Gil Dobie]

Minneapolis rejected the measure to get rid of the police force, and 4 council members that supported getting rid of the police force were defeated. 16 carjackings last weekend in the Minni-Apple, still not safe.

[93henfan]

I'm not sure if the public does gag at the cost. But if that is indeed a problem the Democrats need to find a way to get perceptions adjusted to take into account that the 3.5 billion and now the 1.5 or 1.75 or whatever it is cost numbers are 10 year numbers.

Cool. So since we all know the Democrats will only be in control of Congress for one more year....

$1.75T / 10 = $175B

Problem solved. Pass your progressive bullshit for a year at $175B and be done with it. We can survive one year of failed unicorns and rainbows. Nobody wants it except for a few lunatic progressive representatives in liberal hellholes. What everyone wants is the infrastructure bill that they're holding up. We actually need a lot of that one.

As Manchin just said about 15 minutes ago in the live interview with Bret Baier, they need to start thinking about what's best for the country, and not what's best for their party.

[Ivytalk]

On the Virginia Governor election: Once again, the Republican was the candidate of relatively uneducated White people.

When I was on my work computer today...during an authorized break of course...I looked up exit polling at https://www.washingtonpost.com/election ... -governor/. There is a pay wall so I can't access it now on my personal computer. But I took some screen images.

Terry McAuliffe did about as well among voters with college degrees in general as well as among White voters with college degrees as Biden did. He won among voters with college degrees by 58% to 41%. Biden beat Trump among such voters by 57% to 40%. He won among White voters with college degrees by 53% to 47%. Biden beat Trump among such voters by 52% to 45%.

So, if we were only talking about highly educated voters, we'd have gotten about the same result.

But, while Biden actually beat Trump among voters without college degrees by 53% to 46%, McAuffie lost among that group by 60% to 40%. And he lost by worse among White voters without college degrees. Biden did lose among White voters without college degrees by 62% to 38%. But McAuliffe lost among that group by 76% to 24%.

So, you can see where the movement was. It wasn't among highly educated voters.

My opinion is that it was a matter of relatively ignorant White people buying dog whistle stuff. Like the idea that Youngkin is going to be better for education in Virginia is absolutely ridiculous. The idea that Youngkin is even qualified for the job is absolutely ridiculous. Highly educated people are more likely to understand such things.

StWronge, you never disappoint. Distilling your bloviation to its essence, you blame stupid white voters for Youngkin’s win over your beloved Democrat Party. Same malarkey you’ve been spreading for 5 years. And are you aware that first-time candidates can be much better governors than career politicians like your beloved Hillary-hanger-on McAuliffe? Glenn Youngkin is a graduate of Rice University and Harvard Business School, and has had an exemplary career in business. Compared to those creds, Terry McAuliffe (who went to middling Catholic U) had a financially and ethically checkered business background. Have you done a deep data drive into your boy? I doubt it.

[93henfan]

Watch out. We've got an Ivy league badass over here shit-talking Catholic U. The rest of us from these even less than "middling" public degree mills better check our credentials.

And yeah, the pre-2016 JSO was lost to TDS. No need to read any of his bullshit ramblings anymore. They used to at least be entertaining and somewhat well-reasoned.

[Ivytalk]

Watch out. We've got an Ivy league badass over here shit-talking Catholic U. The rest of us from these even less than "middling" public degree mills better check our credentials.

And yeah, the pre-2016 JSO was lost to TDS. No need to read any of his bullshit ramblings anymore. They used to at least be entertaining and somewhat well-reasoned.

Compared to Notre Dame, Georgetown (which purports to be Catholic), Holy Cross, and Fordham, Catholic U is inferior. Beyond that, McAuliffe has only profited from the courage of his connections. Youngkin is a bona fide success story.

[Ivytalk]

Yeah. Polls show the public likes individual items of BBB but gags at the cost. Sorry, John Q: no free stuff.

I'm not sure if the public does gag at the cost. But if that is indeed a problem the Democrats need to find a way to get perceptions adjusted to take into account that the 3.5 billion and now the 1.5 or 1.75 or whatever it is cost numbers are 10 year numbers.

The CBO estimates that the Federal Government will spend about $63.4 trillion over the next 10 years (see https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57339). $3.5 trillion over that 10 years is "only" about 5.5% of that figure. Yes, it's a lot of money. But I think using the 10 year figure creates the impression that it is more in the context of what Federal spending already is than it actually is.

Very difficult to get that across in simple terms that could make people grasp the situation though. It's a lot easier to just shout "IT'S $3.5 TRILLION" than to get an in context perspective across is. But I think if you could somehow get everyone to understand that we're talking about increasing spending by 5 or 6% over what it's already projected to be most people who support the objectives would go for that.

John StPsaki.

[BDKJMU]

Yeah. Polls show the public likes individual items of BBB but gags at the cost. Sorry, John Q: no free stuff.

I'm not sure if the public does gag at the cost. But if that is indeed a problem the Democrats need to find a way to get perceptions adjusted to take into account that the 3.5 billion and now the 1.5 or 1.75 or whatever it is cost numbers are 10 year numbers.

The CBO estimates that the Federal Government will spend about $63.4 trillion over the next 10 years (see https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57339). $3.5 trillion over that 10 years is "only" about 5.5% of that figure. Yes, it's a lot of money. But I think using the 10 year figure creates the impression that it is more in the context of what Federal spending already is than it actually is.

Very difficult to get that across in simple terms that could make people grasp the situation though. It's a lot easier to just shout "IT'S $3.5 TRILLION" than to get an in context perspective across is. But I think if you could somehow get everyone to understand that we're talking about increasing spending by 5 or 6% over what it's already projected to be most people who support the objectives would go for that.

And you probably think 5%-6% inflation year after year is no big deal either..

[BDKJMU]

On the Virginia Governor election: Once again, the Republican was the candidate of relatively uneducated White people.

When I was on my work computer today...during an authorized break of course...I looked up exit polling at https://www.washingtonpost.com/election ... -governor/. There is a pay wall so I can't access it now on my personal computer. But I took some screen images.

Terry McAuliffe did about as well among voters with college degrees in general as well as among White voters with college degrees as Biden did. He won among voters with college degrees by 58% to 41%. Biden beat Trump among such voters by 57% to 40%. He won among White voters with college degrees by 53% to 47%. Biden beat Trump among such voters by 52% to 45%.

So, if we were only talking about highly educated voters, we'd have gotten about the same result.

But, while Biden actually beat Trump among voters without college degrees by 53% to 46%, McAuffie lost among that group by 60% to 40%. And he lost by worse among White voters without college degrees. Biden did lose among White voters without college degrees by 62% to 38%. But McAuliffe lost among that group by 76% to 24%.

So, you can see where the movement was. It wasn't among highly educated voters.

My opinion is that it was a matter of relatively ignorant White people buying dog whistle stuff. Like the idea that Youngkin is going to be better for education in Virginia is absolutely ridiculous. The idea that Youngkin is even qualified for the job is absolutely ridiculous. Highly educated people are more likely to understand such things.

Translation from JSO: People without college degrees are ignorant.

[CID1990]

Dear Moderates: The Left Isn’t Why McAuliffe Lost Virginia

Democrats worried about 2022 don’t need a crystal ball to understand what needs to be done. Supermajorities of Americans are already shouting their preferences: They want as much of Joe Biden’s Build Back Better agenda as possible—and a Democratic Party willing to stand behind his ambitious and necessary promises. The worst thing that could possibly happen, then, is for the party’s conservatives to read McAuliffe’s loss as a sign that Americans are turned off by the Democratic agenda.
...
“Republicans won by creating a fake bogeyman and telling suburban voters they will defeat it,” The Daily Beast’s Wajahat Ali tweeted on Tuesday night. “Dems didn’t come out with a counter message. And there it is. Hats off to the depraved cynicism and villainy and race baiting. It worked in Virginia like we said it would.”
...
Passing a robust domestic spending program and moving quickly to advance a voting rights package is the minimum Democrats can do to show they are acting on Biden’s lofty campaign promises. Those are also two key areas where conservative Democrats—not progressives—are opposed to the consensus within both their own party and their own country. For all their complaining about making Build Back Better work for “regular Americans,” voters want a deal that looks much more like Pramil Jayapal’s than Joe Manchin’s.

Use this link if a paywall gets in the way:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/dear-moderat ... 16661.html

Either this writer is out of touch or I am but a Vox poll is probably as unbiased as one from OAN.

I’ve been reading about how the BBB agenda is not polling well ... and this article says the opposite.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

On the Virginia Governor election: Once again, the Republican was the candidate of relatively uneducated White people.

When I was on my work computer today...during an authorized break of course...I looked up exit polling at https://www.washingtonpost.com/election ... -governor/. There is a pay wall so I can't access it now on my personal computer. But I took some screen images.

Terry McAuliffe did about as well among voters with college degrees in general as well as among White voters with college degrees as Biden did. He won among voters with college degrees by 58% to 41%. Biden beat Trump among such voters by 57% to 40%. He won among White voters with college degrees by 53% to 47%. Biden beat Trump among such voters by 52% to 45%.

So, if we were only talking about highly educated voters, we'd have gotten about the same result.

But, while Biden actually beat Trump among voters without college degrees by 53% to 46%, McAuffie lost among that group by 60% to 40%. And he lost by worse among White voters without college degrees. Biden did lose among White voters without college degrees by 62% to 38%. But McAuliffe lost among that group by 76% to 24%.

So, you can see where the movement was. It wasn't among highly educated voters.

My opinion is that it was a matter of relatively ignorant White people buying dog whistle stuff. Like the idea that Youngkin is going to be better for education in Virginia is absolutely ridiculous. The idea that Youngkin is even qualified for the job is absolutely ridiculous. Highly educated people are more likely to understand such things.

Translation from JSO: People without college degrees are ignorant.

I would say that, on average, people without college degrees are more ignorant than people with college degrees are. Also less intelligent. That's on average. Do you really doubt that, if someone were to give IQ tests to all the people in Virginia with college degrees and all the people in Virginia without them, the average for the people with college degrees would be higher? Or design a reasonable test with respect to knowledge about what's going on in the world, the country, and in their State. You know which group would score higher on average. It wouldn't be the group without college degrees.