Another election myth cleared up

The Kentucky primary was today, which I wasn't going to mention because the major parties' presidential choices have been effectively clinched. (The Greens don't have a primary yet in Kentucky. Hopefully that'll change soon.) I also didn't go to see Hillary Clinton when she came to Covington, because I knew I wouldn't be able to withstand a stubborn attack speech from someone who clearly won't be the nominee. But now there's something I should clear up.

Turns out Obama - at least among Democrats in Kentucky - actually does better among voters who make less than $100,000 a year than among those who make more. Obama did 2% better while Clinton did 2% worse.

I knew Clinton would do better among higher income groups, despite all the hype to the contrary. She's a very well-established DLCer. Among Kentucky Democrats, she appeals more to the elite decision-makers (who frankly annoy me). A majority of the blue-collar workers that I know are actually for Obama.

Something similar happened with some stupid social engineering wingnut-type crap that was on the ballot in Kentucky in 2004. The media painted an image of poorer voters being a bunch of reactionary oafs, while the wealthier voters were portrayed as enlightened, educated leaders. But an exit poll showed that the lower income group was actually less likely to support this conservative legislation than the higher income group!

It amazes you. Some individuals in this state have had so many more opportunities than I had to get the finest education. I don't even have a college degree; they do. Yet they generally supported a socially conservative law, and I didn't!

I'm frankly not worried about who won Kentucky today, but at least we've blown another political myth out of the water.