Frank, it's true that this is what the Boston
Globe op-ed piece says, but it's based on a total
misunderstanding of the analysis that (AFAIK) started
this whole red-blue thing - David Brooks' article
in 2001 in the Atlantic. Brooks is a conservative
but he characterized the blue electorate as more
educated, and by no small margin. It's well-known
that I am not a confrontational polarized kind of guy,
but it's unfair that conservatives can get away with
characterizing liberals as effete over-educated slobs,
and as undereducated boobs, glued to Jerry Springer.

Oz


Frank Dresser wrote:

The article doesn't say the conservative audience is less educated than the
liberal audience. Check it out:

"But take another look at that map. The death knell you see lurking is
audience demographics (i.e. it's the economy, stupid). Red (Bush) vs. Blue
(Gore) is a distinction of ideology, but it is also, as frankly we know,
essentially a division of social class, race, and income. The red audience
is largely suburban, college educated, professional, middle class; the blue
(potential) audience more urban, less well educated, lower income. And this
difference will matter infinitely more in the radio booth than the voting
booth."

In fact, the article says about the audiences:

(Bush), college educated

(Gore), less well educated

Perhaps the author might have been clearer if he had used Blue for True Blue
Americans and Red for Commie Simp Pinkos.



Can't argue with that.

Leonard



Frank Dresser