Was watching some pundits talk about why Obama does so well in "places like" Oregon and why Clinton does well in places like Kentucky.
One pundit (who threw a fit when people tried to say Obama was being "elitist") explained it: The difference between Oregon and Kentucky is the difference between Latte and Instant Coffee. Higher income, better educated, on a better track in life versus low income/poor, low or no education, with a bleak outlook.
So... Was elite just a poor choice of words to describe people who have higher incomes, better educations and on a better track in life?
Whats your take on it? I see it as described, but I also have no problem thinking or saying that he appeals more to upper class people; elite people if you will. Isn't that just exactly what the recent votes prove?
Also, who's vote is more important: the ones from the people doing better, or from the people doing worse? Does it matter? Will I ever stfu with the questions?
One pundit (who threw a fit when people tried to say Obama was being "elitist") explained it: The difference between Oregon and Kentucky is the difference between Latte and Instant Coffee. Higher income, better educated, on a better track in life versus low income/poor, low or no education, with a bleak outlook.
So... Was elite just a poor choice of words to describe people who have higher incomes, better educations and on a better track in life?
Whats your take on it? I see it as described, but I also have no problem thinking or saying that he appeals more to upper class people; elite people if you will. Isn't that just exactly what the recent votes prove?
Also, who's vote is more important: the ones from the people doing better, or from the people doing worse? Does it matter? Will I ever stfu with the questions?
Comment