Uneducated Voters

Of all the components to this primary that piss me off there is one golden, shining beacon of asinine idiocy that literally keeps me up at night because I'm too fucking pissed off to sleep.

You see, whenever Clinton's wins are analyzed the demographic tick-off is nigh-always "Whites, women, and those without a college education". When pundits start talking about the gas tax holiday proposed by McCain and Clinton pundits portray the sides as:
"It's the old "if it feels good, do it" (that Clinton and McCain have seen succeed for so long during times that pocketbook politics have dominated the debate) versus the intellectual argument Obama is trying to have (that usually is praised by, well, intellectuals but dismissed by rank-and-file voters who want their tax cut or gas prices cut)."
Moreover when you actually talk to experts you'll see that economists and people who know shit understand that the gas tax holiday is a terrible idea not only because it won't help the economy but also because, you know, the more gas we burn the sooner we'll all be dead.

And I'm trying to figure out why the fucking hell no one has stopped to point out that when the debate is between uneducated people and intellectuals there is no debate because FUCK UNEDUCATED PEOPLE. If the primary supporters of a given candidate or policy are uneducated does not that indicate some fundamental flaw in the candidate or policy given that, you know, stupid people like it?

Granted, if you look at the statistics you'll see that a lot of these "gaps" are not necessarily overwhelming. Obama has maybe a 10% lead over McCain with people who have post-graduate education. In PA Clinton's lead among people without college degrees was around 19 points. So if you have a college degree you can decide whether or not 10% or 19 points is significant.

But, really, oughtn't those uneducated people be removed from the process anyway?

I know that there is a level of discomfort which results from the notion that certain people oughtn't be allowed to participate in the process, that we cling to this bizarre, idiotic notion that everyone matters. But i'm not talking about racism or sexism or ageism or any of the other baseless forms of segregation based in rampant idiocy. I'm talking about idiocy itself. If we don't allow felons (people who have demonstrably shown that they are incapable of making decisions which behoove society) to vote then why the fuck would we allow uneducated people to vote?

Wouldn't it be sort of terrific if everyone who participated in the democratic process could read at a college level, were well versed in the Classics and familiar with thinkers such as Locke and Hobbes? Wouldn't it be delightful if everyone who voted based their decision on an objective assessment of a candidate's positions and soundness of their policies rather than the color of their skin, their genitals, or whatever other mud-fucking-stupid criteria uneducated dipshits utilize?

But if we aren't going to prohibit uneducated people from voting; if we're going to maintain this delusional, baseless notion that those people have valid concerns and respectable decision making abilities then can't we at least frame the conversation to be condescending towards them? Oughtn't we openly mock Clinton for maintaining positions supported by those without a college education? Oughtn't we rightly portray this preposterous gas tax holiday as an uneconomial, unenvironmental pander to the lowest common denominator? For fuck's sake can't we all agree to call a moron a moron and stop dignifying and respecting the positions of these dipshits?

Here's my proposal: The next time Clinton wins a state as a result of carrying the uneducated white dipshit vote? Instead of lauding her ability to appeal to the residents of Bumblefuck, Tacoma and skewing the spin to portray her positions as sensible, supported, and good let's rather embrace the nature of the win and summarize her victory in a manner truly befitting her supporters and policies:

"Hayuck!"