Income ?= Intelligence
Boortz says on January 21, 2008,
The median age of voters in the 2008 election will be 44 … and for Hillary voters, they will be single women and the uneducated. How does that make you Hillary supporters feel? Every study that’s been done has shown that Hillary supporters make less money .. that mean’s they’re less successful than the supporters of other candidates. I think it’s fair to say that they’re less intelligent as well.
I think it’s fair to point out that Boortz makes oodles more money than the average voter for any candidate, but gives every indication in his writing that he is far less intelligent than the average voter… for any candidate.
I’m not sure how to link to him these days… Here is his main page, and the relevant quote is in the “Required Reading Section”. After today, I’m sure today’s page will eventually be added to an archive of some sort.
(Crossposted @ The Anti-Boortz… just to see how this goes)
His archives update daily, so tomorrow there’ll be a link to the page for the 21st. & you can update this entry with that URL.
On substance, he’s correct. From every study that I’ve come across (anecdotal, of course, so someone can easily amend the statement & I’ll honor it because this is my own experience) shows that liberal Democrats (or progressive, or whatever, just signifying the difference between Democrats like, say, John Lewis and Sam Nunn….you know what I mean, nothing offensive intended) are supported by those with below-average education, while at the same time scoring support from those at the very top of the educational ladder & the more right leaning candidates garnering the majority in-between. Meaning that their support comes from the bottom tier of the educational ladder plus the corps of college professors across the nation.
The easy retort is that Dems are chiefly supported by the big city areas, which are made up of the worst schools & worst test scores in their respective states (on the whole, of course).
Throw on top of that the aspect of single women overwhelmingly supporting Democrats (of course, married women overwhelmingly support Republicans) & since their incomes are lower, it adds to the evidence.
It’s just another one of those examples of a statement that is considered controversial because of the subject matter, even though it is true by way of fact, much like saying the average educational level of the Appalachian white Bush voter is lower than the San Francisco liberal sort or that black males make up a disproportionate percentage of the violent crime rates. Intelligence is not directly correlated with income (Rosie O’Donnell is immensely talented, but let’s face it, she’s an idiot & there are plenty of smart people who prefer to have jobs with moderate incomes for various reasons like family, locations, schedules and the like, or my son, for example, is super intelligent, but thanks to his autism -which may be part of his intelligence? Who knows?- we don’t know if he’ll a high-earner or will need constant social attention.) but it is also one of the driving indicators of what one’s income level is LIKELY to be. Not always, but more than likely. If the USA was for one day turned into a socialist country & everyone’s wealth was immediately redistributed equally and the next day turned back into a capitalist nation, chances are pretty good that within 10 years most would be right back where they were. That’s the nature of things.
Come on, buddy, ya can’t have the prospect of the DNC constantly charging that the GOP is the party of big business and the rich “angry white males” without that meaning that the DNC is the party of the lower class (aka, “working man”). There’s a reason that the DNC leans more towards the class warfare arguments - valid or no, I’m not arguing those right now - because it’s advantageous to them because of their base.