Another Joe User wrote a lovely (read that sarcasm as intended please!) article complaining about Obama Supporters Condescending ways... That article could be found here: Condescending_Obama_Supporters (sorry, I didn't use the original article title, but it's close enough for my purposes and doesn't alter the intent, or at least I don't believe it does, of the original poster (OP) of that article.)
In anycase, thanks to an AP news article on events going on in West Virginia today, I've got a nice rebuttal piece to that original article. Read on for the details...
News today: Clinton seeks largely symbolic win in W.Va. (from Myway.com, originally from AP)
CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) - Hillary Rodham Clinton reached out for a largely symbolic victory in the West Virginia primary Tuesday over Barack Obama, front-runner in a historic Democratic presidential race nearing an end. Obama conceded defeat in advance in the state, looking ahead to the Oregon primary later in the month and the fall campaign against John McCain, the republican nominee-in-waiting.
Interviews with West Virginia voters leaving their polling places showed an electorate that was overwhelmingly white.
Nearly one in four of all ballots were cast by voters 60 and older, and a similar number by West Virginians with no education beyond high school. More than half the voters were in families with incomes of $50,000 or less. Clinton has done particularly well in primaries to date among older, less well-educated and lower-income families.
The original poster (OP) of the first article linked above here, Locamama, wonders why people make generalized statements that only stupid people are voting for Hillary, or that only older people are, or that racists are. Apparently that OP hasn't looked into the details that are represented in the news quoted above.
Let's pick it apart for a second:
Interviews with West Virginia voters leaving their polling places showed an electorate that was overwhelmingly white.
If one didn't have the history of the state and region to look back on, that part about the electorate being overwhelmingly white wouldn't be something one could really generalize about, but... W.Va.'s reputation, heck the reputation of much of the Appalachia region, preceeds this news so most educated individuals look at the common knowledge and facts that the KKK has such a rich history in W.Va. (look up Robert Byrd's history for example, or research the history of the KKK for example, and so on, and so on...) and they logically conclude that an overwhelmingly white electorage in a state such as W.Va. means the voters will overwhelmingly support the white candidate, whomever that may be.
Continuing...
Nearly one in four of all ballots were cast by voters 60 and older
Gee, really? So it's mostly older voters? (Where have I heard that before...) Mostly older voters in a state known to have a history of racism? Mostly older voters that are likely to be casting ballots to supporting a white individual because many of those older voters were raised in a time when the color of a man (or woman's) skin made all the difference in the world. Yup, to be expected.
Continuing a bit more...
... and a similar number (of votes cast) by West Virginians with no education beyond high school.
No high school education. Hmm, perhaps that is why those voters are described as being under-educated, or why some use words such as 'ignorant' or 'stupid' (though those terms incite and denote hate and ignorance of a different type...)
More...
More than half the voters were in families with incomes of $50,000 or less.
Where I come from that would likely be considered 'poor'. The article writer actually uses another term in the last sentence in the paragraph:
Clinton has done particularly well in primaries to date among older, less well-educated and lower-income families.
There you go, a nicer, more polite way of saying 'poor', and a less hateful way of saying ignorant or stupid too.
