Why can't Senator Clinton connect with educated voters?

I was listening to NPR this morning and wondering why, on news program after news program, nobody is questioning the Clinton assertion that Obama can't win working class whites simply because she wins them in the primaries. Nobody questions how you can determine someone's general election preferences based on their primary preferences if their primary choice is not in the race. Does anyone say, Hillary can't win blacks? Or, to your point, she can't win college educated voters?

I wasn't saying educated voters wouldn't vote Clinton in the fall, only that they are not doing so in the spring. Why is that? I know why I support Obama, but I don't know that I'm representative of the college educated crowd or why those with different educational backgrounds would feel otherwise.

I didn't mean to say that you were saying that. I was just seeing your question as related to my wonderment this morning. We wonder why she can't connect with college educated voters. We wonder why he can't connect with working class whites.

I have all sorts of theories, of course. But they're just theories. My hunch is that some cross section of voters really misses Bill and are very loyal to "the Clintons". They don't follow or don't care about the systematic destruction of separation of powers in the federal government or torture or corruption of the justice department. They just know they are not better off than they were 8 years ago and they see the Clintons as a known quantity.

For the college educated, my hunch is that they care more about fixing the system of government and believe that Obama is the best one to do that.

IMO, Clinton tends to use more of the blunt talking points when it comes to explaining how she intends to address problems. She's throws out the short quips that make for good 10 second sound bites but lack substance.

Obama tends to take a more cautious approach in many of his responses indicating that he understands that there are nuances that have to be considered.

These seem to hold true for both candidates from their pre-campaign season actions too. I'd have to guess that the more educated portion of the population recognizes that there are no easy answers and Obama's more cautious style resonates better with them.

(That's not to say that Clinton doesn't have more to her plans than sound bites or the Obama is really thinking about the nuances - both could be true.)

Re: Why can't Senator Clinton connect with educated voters?


Because we are SMARTER than she will ever be.

We can see through her BS and acknowledge that she has no experience, is a liar, a likely co-conspirator in the murder of Vince Foster, a tax cheat and one who can not locate her billing records and can not tell the difference between sniper fire and a welcome reception.

Did I miss anything?

I think you pretty much hit it all woiyo. She panders to her audience and insults our intelligence with her fairy tales of experience and running the country when her husband was in office. And may I turn up the volume on the lying part?

SHE IS A BOLD-FACED LIAR. SHE CANNOT BE TRUSTED TO RUN ANYTHING IF SHE'S SO WILLING TO TELL SUCH SHAMELESS LIES AS HER BOSNIA TALE TO GET WHAT SHE WANTS.

what fishin said.

For me personally, the way the Clinton campaign insults my intelligence on a daily basis is grating. It's not only Bosnia or N. Ireland, it's the Obama is anti-abortion campaign in NH and the "he's outspent me 3 to 1, he should win PA going away" comments. Every time I hear a Clinton representative speak, there is some glaring twist of reality that feels like fingernails on a chalk board. But I think everyone would respond that way. Some of her lies are a bit nuanced, but most are just outright whoppers.

Her campaign is an insult to anyone with any intelligence.

She doesn't even know how to do math.

She is now claiming that she won by 10% in Pennsylvania (any sixth grade math student can calculate the real margin of victory was 9.2%).

By the way "can't connect" is a gross understatement.

Most of the educated voters I know are damn pissed at her for the sleazy, damaging campaign she is running.

I think there are a gazillion elements to this, and also many different reasons within different sub-groupings. "Less-educated" is still a huge, diverse group, and I don't think any set of ideas applies to everyone in that group.

But I understand this is just kind of a thought exercise, with some good ideas already, and so will go ahead with some of my ideas. Above caveats apply tho. (Non-homogeneous, not everything applies to everyone, etc.)

Anyway. One element is, I think, that less-educated voters were more likely to start out leaning towards Clinton, but stay with her for shifting reasons.

Starting out
Short version is, she was the safer choice. Very well-known, overwhelming favorite, 8 years of White House experience, etc. I'm talking about like, last year. Not everyone's a politics wonk but I bet a lot of the people who are voting now knew last year that a) Hillary was running and that b) and that she was expected to win.

Now
She still is the safer choice in some ways -- better-known, more bare-knuckle*, etc. But I think there is also a large element of push-back, of "don't tell me what to think" once that initial decision was made. That the more she is dissed and criticized and presumed dead, the more these people identify with her and want to see her win and prove all those irritating ivory-tower-types wrong.


*This, by the way, I think is another element. I think less-educated people -- with fewer options -- are more likely to think that the world is fundamentally unfair. They don't necessarily think Hillary Clinton is nicer or better or that she isn't, in fact, playing dirty -- they're just more likely to think that playing dirty is the only way to get anywhere, and that thinking otherwise is soft/ unrealistic.

I don't, by the way, think this is a permanent problem. I think that if Obama becomes the nominee, a lot of people in this group will vote for him after a stretch of campaigning against McCain. Part of why I want that stretch to be as long as possible.

Some of them just won't, yes, but some Republicans/ Independents (and Democrats for that matter) just won't vote for Hillary -- but will vote for Obama -- and I think that in the end, Obama would do better in a general election.

Some of the most intelligent people I know didn't have a good education, are mostly self taught. Some of the most educated by schooling that I know, are plum stupid. People may vary. I think Obama and Clinton have different types of intelligence, or brightness, which might have different definitions.

I agree with the posts so far. Engineer's resonates most with me: I can barely tolerate one more sentence from her. How the hell will I vote for her if I have to. (Me: well schooled, not your brightest light.)

I gotta go with eoe and woiyo on this one. I think that she really thinks she can say anything without the general public realizing she is lying. Those with a smidgen of education know she is lying. Of course, she doesn't really care for the votes of the educated public as long as she can get the votes of the vase majority of the uneducated ones she will be happy. After all, there are a lot more of them than there are of us.

I am not so sure about this. Hillary's behavior in this election is making a lot of core Democratic supporters very angry. She is playing divide and conquer politics... playing to white blue-collar voters with the hope that non-white and non-blue collar voters won't have anywhere else to go.

Her sleaze, from her fear tactics to her bomb Iran bravado, are deeply offensive to me (and many others).

I am very angry at the way the Clintons are behaving. Her divisive scorched earth campaign quite possible means that she would have no chance because she loses her own core.

I don't know how I will feel in a few months, but right now I have a hard time imagining that after all this, I could ever vote for Clinton.

I wish she would just go away now.

Education is nothing to do with Election.
Ask any illeterate in india where democracy( with lot of corrptions still survive)
If Germans were educated they would have thown the bloody rascal ( Hitler)who had ruined the image of Germany.
If USA's voters were educated they would have repudiated BUSH's official legitimacy to ruin the image of USA.

Hillary Clinton and Obama are intellectuals who wish to change the world without any substance and risk..
Let the Drama goes on with this kind of ignorance which is all pervasive.

But in this election, there is a clear divide on how the population votes based on education level. Those with high school or less favor Clinton, those with a college degree or more favor Obama. Rama, why do you think that is? (I noticed you posted an on-topic posting on another thread, so I'm trying here. Please don't let me down by spouting nonsense. Please, please, please)

I'd say college grads tend to have a good deal more exposure to politically active people both during and after college and therefore develop a somewhat keener nose for sniffing out a phony.

By my estimation; it usually isn't a terribly useful skill since most elections stink to high heaven from every corner. And that is what makes this one so special.

I believe that applying generalizations about any large group of people is inherently risky, and that the problem is particularly great when dealing with classes such as "educated people" and those who are relatively "uneducated".

It is a great mistake to suppose that the "uneducated" are necessarily or even relatively stupid or lacking in discernment or sound judgement, compared to those with substantial education. Indeed, given the number of educated fools out there, one can even find a basis for real caution. A little education is often merely be the stuff that sustains the closed minds of unimaginative, dull blockheads, who are all-too-ready to suppose that their 'education' has made them better than they really are. I have often found that the 'ordinary' folks who populate the working levels of industry or the military services (in my case the Navy) were far better observers & judges of human nature, and far more insightful than their "educated superiors".

None of this, of course, deters the stastical inclinations of those who endlessly analyze public behavior to discern small differences in preferences for this or that product or candidate for office - among other things. I suppose this is somewhat useful for making sense out of the usually small differences in the average preferences of large groups. However, that's about as far as it can go. The attempt to torture finer distinctions out of these small stastical differences usually leads only to foolish speculations.