Well, feel free to show those statistics if you'd like to reference them, but (as we've already discussed) I'm not 100% sure that reading the paper or watching the news gives a deeper level of understanding beyond rhetoric, given Obama's speaking style.

I don't really know what this means (which is probably part of the issue), but if you're referring to the logical fallacy of "setting up a strawman" I don't really think I'm doing that.

I'm claiming that you're making an improper assumption that college grads have an implicitly or explicitly deep understanding of their chosen candidate's politics by nature (or whatever), just like others are improper in assuming Obama's followers are superficial fans of his rhetoric. I don't know if it's "always true" - I assume everyone reads message board posts as opinion pieces barring citation. Maybe that's dumb? No idea, dude.

I'm not saying that college-educated people aren't, on the whole, more intelligent - I'm saying that there's a certain threshold for going "deeper" than rhetoric or simply "I like him!" You have clearly passed this threshold yourself, so I think you're assuming others have as well. I don't think there is any evidence that this threshold is set at "college educated."

Your wish is my command Ksig:

In Wisconsin: "College-educated voters, who made up 72 percent of those polled, favored him 58 percent to 40 percent." http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/...iref=hpmostpop

Another article: http://chronicle.com/blogs/election/...llege-educated

And another: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...,3269133.story

God Bless Google News Search.

Yeah...but I'm talking about Obama supporters.

Being an Obama supporter is cool now because change is cool. So everywhere I go and everyone who talks to me is harassing me about Obama. But most of them don't know why they're harassing me.

And I'm saying that people on GC often tend to read assumptions and words like "always" into a statement you've made in order to attack the assumption or a more unequivocal statement than the original as a means of taking down a person's argument (which IS an example of the "setting up the strawman" argument... thank you for reminding me of the correct wording after so many years since Intro to Philosophy). I don't think I ever said anything about ALL college grads being one way or another, which is how I took your previous post.

Oh yeah, and I'm not a dude. :p

ETA: Sorry Ksig... I realized now that you weren't the one who was setting up my argument as a strawman. It was DSTC... my other post was responding to her reply to me that some Obama supporters aren't well informed. That's true, but it has nothing to do with the point I was making.

First off, "dude" is not gender-specific anymore - you should know that, counselor, if you've been reading up on your Gen-X/Y materials. I can ship you some if you send me a billing address. (Note: I'm totally kidding here, and not patronizing, I promise)

Also, I apologize for this, because I kind of set you up - this is why I didn't just hit up Google News myself, as well - but it's fascinating that Obama was favored by college-aged voters by a 58:40 margin . . . since he was favored by all voters at a 58:41 margin.

I know it's popular wisdom that Obama resonates with the educated, but the only solid statistical evidence I've seen shows that Obama's significant advantage is actually among college students (who are also showing up more than ever before). Zogby, IIRC, pushed this whole "college educated" thing a few times, before some serious statistical flaws were identified (full disclosure: I think John Zogby is a douche, and that's based on professional experiences), but I'm not 100% sure it's been shown as consistent.

Very good point (proof how statistics are not as transparent as they seem)! I think that maybe the other articles highlight that it might be more of an educational difference for white voters, although I have to admit that I haven't looked up the original statistics used as bases for those articles. Touche, though.

And I've never been called a dude in real life. Maybe it is supposed to be okay and gender neutral, but "dude" felt as awkward as when someone on here calls me a "he." I'm just as bad, though, because for the longest time I thought MysticCat was a woman and Dionysus was a man (I know, the login name should have been clue #1).

This was my only point. You just chose to respond and attempted to expound on something that is already clear as day.

It has been that long since we had a balanced budget. Well, 2000.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLI...inton.surplus/

Booming economy vs. our current not quite a recession yet we hope one?

It was also a GOP Congress with a Democratic president meaning nothing that either of them wanted was really getting done. And no war in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Balancing the budget is easy, raise taxes.

Yes, this always pulls up a struggling economy.

Because most of them -- the idealists and the college Republicans -- haven't really experienced real life yet.

Agreed. I mean, Bush has been trying for 8 years, yet the Republic still survives. ;)

It wasn't meant to. The concept of "balancing the budget" is taking in more than you spend (none of this addresses the national debt of course). It's just the opposite of losing weight which is taking in less than you burn off.

Theoretically both are simple, in reality they're not that easy.

LOL!

Yeah, you really did . . . it was just too easy. :D

I imagine you do, and I would guess that lots of college students do. I think I did in college. But even with some understanding of real life gleaned from parents and limited experience, it's just different when you get out and have to make it on your own.

I just read this article and the last line in it reminded me of your post (to paraphrase, the math is easy, the politics are hard). Frankly, just the size numbers we're talking about gives me a headache. http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/22/news...ey_mostpopular

The 44th president's $4 trillion headache
The candidates want to do things like reduce taxes and fix health care. But they'll have to deal with the cold realities of the federal budget.

By Jeanne Sahadi, CNNMoney.com senior writer
February 22 2008: 3:07 PM EST

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The presidential candidates all have big plans for their time in the White House. Reform health care. Reduce taxes. Close corporate loopholes. Encourage savings. The list goes on.

Like college graduates whose career choices may be limited by their student loan debt, however, the next president could be constrained by the federal budget. ... whole story at link above ...

This doesn't make any sense - if you balance the budget, you are indeed "addressing the national debt" because the surplus can go toward recouping debt. I don't see how these can be severed.

Obviously there are dozens of factors at work, such as trade/inflationary benefits to staying a debtor, the dangers of China pegging its currency to the dollar, whatever - but that doesn't change the fundamental nature of math. Having a surplus -> lowering debt.

I have no idea why you're being so dismissive here - budget concerns seem perfectly valid, given the litany of new programs on both the Obama and Clinton platforms and the state of the economy.

I'm talking the difficulty both politically and economically of juggling a struggling economy (which was the part where "it wasn't meant to" was aimed), the needs of those below the poverty line, the needs of the middle class that, even if they're not buying everything on credit, is struggling to make it from paycheck to paycheck, and the wants of those who don't "need" anything anymore.

Any budget surplus we might have from actually balancing the budget will not make a dent in the national debt. The budget surpluses of the past have been saved for other things, not spent on paying down our principal.

Budget concerns are completely valid, and if the plans that any of the candidates, including McCain since he's not really appearing to be a fiscal conservative, are completely impossible based on the money, they won't happen. That will sort itself out and either party is likely to put us in greater debt, not less. As complex as the government is, it takes an economist who's studied it for a length of time to actually address whether things will save or cost money in the long run. I could posit that a national health care system, one that focuses on prevention, will actually save money in the long run due to the lack of the uninsured coming in to the ER instead of a doctor's office. But I don't know that one way or the other so I'm not really going to guess.

To balance the budget we could tax everyone more, but most people do not want that. Even though that's the very simple answer.

This made my day! Can I just say how much I love this! :D (I know it's kinda old but...)