Thank you Michael Moore!

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » November 11, 2004, 6:56 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/ ... index.html

Moore to shoot sequel to 'Fahrenheit'

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- Michael Moore plans a follow-up to "Fahrenheit 9/11," his hit documentary that assails President Bush over the handling of the September 11 attacks and the war on terrorism, according to a Hollywood trade paper.

Moore told Daily Variety that he and Harvey Weinstein, the Miramax boss who produced the film, hope to have "Fahrenheit 9/11 1/2" ready in two to three years.

"Fifty-one percent of the American people lacked information (in this election) and we want to educate and enlighten them," Moore was quoted in Thursday's edition of Variety. "They weren't told the truth. We're communicators and it's up to us to start doing it now."

A spokesman for Fellowship Adventure Group, formed by Weinstein and brother Bob to help distribute "Fahrenheit 9/11," did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

"Fahrenheit 9/11," which won top honors at May's Cannes Film Festival, became the first documentary to top $100 million at the domestic box office. Moore, who won the documentary Academy Award for "Bowling for Columbine," is pushing "Fahrenheit 9/11" in the best-picture category for the upcoming Oscars.

The issues for the follow-up film will remain the same, Iraq and terrorism, Moore said.

"The official mourning period is over today and there is a silver lining: George W. Bush is prohibited by law from running again," Moore said.

This will both hit up the liberals for more $$ and help get the next republican elected. This is the best news I've seen all day! Bling bling! Cha Cha Ching!

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » November 11, 2004, 6:58 pm

What can we say? You have O'Reilly and Limbaugh, we have Moore.

I'd also like to note that you don't have to be liberal to oppose the war in Iraq.

-=Lohrno

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » November 11, 2004, 7:03 pm

I think the thing that pisses the crackpot conservatives off the most about crackpot liberals, is that they (conservatives) have been bullshitting on talk radio, "news" TV and the oval office for free, all this time. Now along comes this liberal who has figured out that people will pay 8 bucks a pop to listen to bullshit.

If I were Limbaugh, I'd turn to painkillers too.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » November 11, 2004, 7:29 pm

hehe Rush Limbaugh isnt hurting for $$

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » November 11, 2004, 8:09 pm

Talk shows are free to listen to! Moore's hitting you up for $$.

If you really think that Michael Moore cares about more than his pocketbook then I'm willing to bet there's an 80% chance you own the Super Deluxe Editor's Cut Gold Plated Ultimate Edition of F/911 and have already searched for the 20.00 pre-order of F/911 1/2 on Amazon.

I've seen no studies, but I'm willing to bet that F/911 and Moore's asshattery actually hurt Kerry's chances in the 2004 election. It certainly didn't help. There's no way to tell as the survey clowns only asked the 99.9 percent liberals that made up the viewing audience of F/911 and not the majority that didn't see the movie because they were turned off after reading reviews of Moore's fake documentary which swung their vote to Bush.

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » November 11, 2004, 9:08 pm

The best thing for Moore on a business scale happened: Bush got re-elected. He's a businessman, just like Limbaugh and O'Reilly. They pander to the people who agree with everything they say, they inspire rabid-hatred from the opposite side, and they make fortunes doing so. More power to all three of them, I say.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » November 11, 2004, 9:13 pm

Winnow wrote:I've seen no studies, but I'm willing to bet that F/911 and Moore's asshattery actually hurt Kerry's chances in the 2004 election. It certainly didn't help. There's no way to tell as the survey clowns only asked the 99.9 percent liberals that made up the viewing audience of F/911 and not the majority that didn't see the movie because they were turned off after reading reviews of Moore's fake documentary which swung their vote to Bush.

I doubt it. His target was obviously the unwashed masses. I think several voted for Kerry after that. Especially the younger ones. He's like Jerry Springer or something. You might have a case when these people who watched his movie and became rabid (the maybe 5% who's minds were not already made up by it) interacted with some of the undecided. Anyways, most Bush fans would not go see it either as their minds are also already made up.

-=Lohrno

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » November 11, 2004, 10:26 pm

bah moore

still an idiot

(spaced for quoting ease)

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » November 11, 2004, 11:02 pm

Lohrno wrote:What can we say? You have O'Reilly and Limbaugh, we have Moore.

I'd also like to note that you don't have to be liberal to oppose the war in Iraq.

-=Lohrno

I refuse to acknowledge that psychopath O'Reilly as a Republican. He is a blight on the party and a great example of what kind of person you DON'T want representing any portion of your political philosophy. I'm sure his ass will be hurting big time after that sexual harrassment lawsuit ruins his carreer, even more so than the 12" dildo he wanted crammed up his ass.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » November 11, 2004, 11:04 pm

Sylvos wrote: I refuse to acknowledge that psychopath O'Reilly as a Republican. He is a blight on the party and a great example of what kind of person you DON'T want representing any portion of your political philosophy. I'm sure his ass will be hurting big time after that sexual harrassment lawsuit ruins his carreer, even more so than the 12" dildo he wanted crammed up his ass.

I'm not too fond of Moore either. =D That's kind of the point I was trying to make. These guys are fringe media ranters. Normal people don't take them too seriously.

-=Lohrno

Tinkin Tankem · Post by **Tinkin Tankem** » November 12, 2004, 2:20 am

What an arrogant ass. So he thinks and states that 51% of the voters were uneducated and

is it me or were 51% of the votes for Bush. For somebody that claims to be pushing for the truth and freedom, how the fuck can you take him seriously when the only truth and freedom he supports is his own?

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » November 12, 2004, 10:46 am

The perception that the dems represent and agree with the hollywood loonies and new england money is what ruined Kerry's election chances.

MM & Co. are the best thing that can happen to the republican party, we need a few more Barbara Streisands as well.

Most the of extreme right are fairly low profile compared to the extreme left. The very visibilty that the loons from the left get via the hollywood and NE based media is also what kills their chances with the moderate majority in the US. Depite all of Hollywoods efforts, this is still a very conservative country.

At a guess both candidates got many votes soley because people were opposed to the other. I'd have voted for almost any mainstream candidate the dems could have run. I'd thought of voting dem on non-presidential national candidates in an attempt to balance things out a bit until I saw who was running.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » November 12, 2004, 12:37 pm

Moore's obsession with Bush really disgusts me. I can't stand his arrogance in his statement that 51% of America weren't properly educated. It is almost like a woman spurnned at the altar trying to get revenge. Did Bush piss in his cherrios as a kid?

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » November 12, 2004, 12:39 pm

I forsee Moore having an "accident" someday, that or perhaps he just "disappers" from the public eye.

krin · Post by **krin** » November 12, 2004, 1:25 pm

Bubba Grizz wrote: It is almost like a woman spurnned at the altar trying to get revenge.

I was thinking the exact same thing.

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » November 12, 2004, 2:06 pm

The fast is that a lot of people agree with him.

Don't blame the director making the movie, blame the people encouraging him by paying to see the work. All he's doing is exposing the situation as he sees it.

I haven't seen F9/11 yet. I do plan on seeing it as well as Columbine one day.

In his next picture, he is going after pharmacieutical corporations. I'm thinking that even a lot of Pro-Bushers have been screwed by high prices of medication. Will those people still call Moore a hack once this picture comes out and it defends their interests?

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » November 12, 2004, 2:21 pm

Animalor wrote:In his next picture, he is going after pharmacieutical corporations. I'm thinking that even a lot of Pro-Bushers have been screwed by high prices of medication. Will those people still call Moore a hack once this picture comes out and it defends their interests?

It depends on how he presents it. I still don't think his films should be called 'documentaries'. They are about finding one point of view and only presenting that regardless of his personal bias or lack of any real facts except those he distorts to support his viewpoint. It's interesting that you seem to defend his work without having actually viewed any of it.

And no, I'm anything but a Bush supporter. Worst president ever!

I'm sure people will cheer Moore with his next film if it means getting cheaper Viagra.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » November 12, 2004, 2:34 pm

Columbine is worth a watch, and is enormously insightful except for one or two politically motivated segments. It's doesn't even have a liberal/anti-gun slant, and the only NRA member who takes any flak from Moore is Charlton Heston (and that's probably just so Moore could look like he's important enough to meet celebrities).

F9/11 on the other hand is a masturbatory re-hashing of damning cases against Bush that you already know about. It's "The Anti-Bush Case for Dummies", starring a self-important blowhard. If you must use a partisan source to remind you why Bush and his disgusting hoard are worthless pricks, at least go to a slightly more reliable hyper-liberal like Al Franken, or someone. Franken sucks balls at making his own points, but at least he's good at pointing out what nitwits the conservative talking heads are, and it's fun watching him snipe easy targets like Coulter or Hannity, or Bush for that matter.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » November 12, 2004, 2:44 pm

Well, 51% of the voting population were in fact uneducated. They voted for Bush.

-=Lohrno

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » November 12, 2004, 2:55 pm

Lohrno wrote:Well, 51% of the voting population were in fact uneducated. They voted for Bush.

-=Lohrno

Wrong democrat. Wrong time.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » November 12, 2004, 3:04 pm

Winnow wrote: Wrong democrat. Wrong time.

This time 51% voted for Bush. Still makes them uneducated, as we are most likely entering one of the worst periods for our country as far as foreign policy, security and domestic issues. I'll gladly suck it up if I'm wrong.

-=Lohrno

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » November 12, 2004, 4:40 pm

Aslanna wrote:
Animalor wrote:In his next picture, he is going after pharmacieutical corporations. I'm thinking that even a lot of Pro-Bushers have been screwed by high prices of medication. Will those people still call Moore a hack once this picture comes out and it defends their interests?
It depends on how he presents it. I still don't think his films should be called 'documentaries'. They are about finding one point of view and only presenting that regardless of his personal bias or lack of any real facts except those he distorts to support his viewpoint. It's interesting that you seem to defend his work without having actually viewed any of it.

And no, I'm anything but a Bush supporter. Worst president ever!

I'm sure people will cheer Moore with his next film if it means getting cheaper Viagra.

Just to point out, nowhere in my post did I call Moore's work Documentaries =)

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » November 12, 2004, 4:44 pm

And nowhere did I say you did. It still doesn't change my point.

Tinkin Tankem · Post by **Tinkin Tankem** » November 12, 2004, 5:26 pm

Lohrno wrote:
Winnow wrote: Wrong democrat. Wrong time.
This time 51% voted for Bush. Still makes them uneducated, as we are most likely entering one of the worst periods for our country as far as foreign policy, security and domestic issues. I'll gladly suck it up if I'm wrong.

-=Lohrno

With such outstanding foresight, could you also do my daily horoscopes?

P.S. Aquarius

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » November 12, 2004, 5:35 pm

Tinkin Tankem wrote: With such outstanding foresight, could you also do my daily horoscopes?

P.S. Aquarius

Horoscope for 11/12/04:

You will wake up and go to your crappy job where you will slack off and make sarcastic remarks on an internet forum. After work, you will be struck and killed by a shortbus. Your lucky numbers for today are: 13, 666, and 0.

-=Lohrno

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » November 12, 2004, 6:17 pm

I can't stand his arrogance in his statement that 51% of America weren't properly educated.

Well, while that might be an extreem to make a point, its not so far off. The media viewers study pretty well established the general ignorance of Bush voters.

Fox viewers (e.g. Bush voters) overwhelmingly got simple facts wrong that were relevant to the election, including, amoung other things:

1. Were WMDs found in Iraq?

2. Did Sadam/Iraq attack us on 9/11?

I mean, if you really believe even those two things, a vote for Bush is a pretty easy call. Thus, its not such a stretch to say that Bush won because his supporters were ignorant.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » November 12, 2004, 8:29 pm

Every dime someone spends on a movie made by this moron provoes they are idiots. If they really wanted to change the political process, they would go third party, but beyond that, smart people would take their 9.50 and send it to the party they support or giving it to a charity, or spending the 2 hours passing out leaflets supporting their candidate.

But dumb people will make sure fatass can keep eating.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » November 12, 2004, 8:41 pm

Hah...I don't know about smart people always going third party, but the fact that a majority of people do not do this proves...what? =D

Actually if I didn't have a job that I work 50 hours a week at I might have been doing this...but admittedly I didn't.

-=Lohrno

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » November 12, 2004, 11:40 pm

Has it been mentioned yet that Moore is not from Flint?!?

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » November 12, 2004, 11:50 pm

Aaeamdar wrote:
I can't stand his arrogance in his statement that 51% of America weren't properly educated.
Well, while that might be an extreem to make a point, its not so far off. The media viewers study pretty well established the general ignorance of Bush voters.

Fox viewers (e.g. Bush voters) overwhelmingly got simple facts wrong that were relevant to the election, including, amoung other things:

1. Were WMDs found in Iraq?

2. Did Sadam/Iraq attack us on 9/11?

I mean, if you really believe even those two things, a vote for Bush is a pretty easy call. Thus, its not such a stretch to say that Bush won because his supporters were ignorant.

To me this sounds more like making excuses for the loss. By Moore saying these things and doing what he is doing, it makes me think of a Jehova Witness who keeps coming to your door bound and determined to change your views on life. There are those on this board who blame Christians for imposing their views on people. Well, I say Moore is worse.

Tinkin Tankem · Post by **Tinkin Tankem** » November 14, 2004, 5:29 pm

I think with using the 51% it's not being used as an exaggerated stat. Rather it's a direct comparison to the % that voted for Bush. Stating from what I can see, 51% voted for Bush. Ergo 51% were uneducated.

Rivera Bladestrike · November 14, 2004, 5:52 pm

Most Bush voters had no idea what had been going on over the past few years and voted for the southerner who "doesn't take shit".

Hell I know a person that voted for Bush because she heard that Kerry was going to attack North Korea. When I struck up facts and a good argument, four other people chimed in with further uneducated opinions. (I live in Indiana for college). These people had obviously not paid attention to the debates, the news over the past 4 years, or read into it in their free time. This is further proof to me that the majority of bush voters (51%+ of bush voters, not all) are not educated in politics or even the ideals their leader promotes, also it is further proof to me that women should not be voting.

I also know a guy that said that Kerry wanted to give slave reparations to all african americans once he became president, and then went on to tell me that even if a nuclear strike hit the US, that kerry would go into peace talks before taking action.

What the fuck is wrong with people?

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » November 14, 2004, 6:02 pm

EDIT: Double-post

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » November 14, 2004, 6:02 pm

There's a disgusting number of people who voted for both candidates for all the wrong reasons. The only irony of Moore's insistance that the vote went the way it did before of ignorance (it did) is that he himself was part of spreading the misinformation that lead many to vote in a way they wouldn't if they had their facts straight.

Did 51% vote the way they did due to a lazy lack of "education" on the issues? Probably. Maybe more than that. I'm just not sure it skews exclusively to the republicans.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » November 14, 2004, 6:05 pm

I'm sorry, but it's just plain arrogance and stupidity to claim ignorance is partisan. It really invalidates the rest of your opinions in my mind to be that dense.

Rivera Bladestrike · November 14, 2004, 6:42 pm

Look at the states that did vote for him, regardless of that IQ thing being true or not, those states have the worst school systems. People who aren't educated early on tend not to both with worldly subjects outside of their immediate life. Nor do they understand what is going on and tend to favor plain and simple propaganda over truth. More intelligent people are more interested in subjects outside their immediate lifestyle and immerse themselve in them.

Don't tell me a farmer from alabama knows more about government politics than a lawyer from new york. It might be a generalization but 95 times out of 100, its a true statement.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » November 14, 2004, 7:09 pm

Rekaar. wrote:I'm sorry, but it's just plain arrogance and stupidity to claim ignorance is partisan. It really invalidates the rest of your opinions in my mind to be that dense.

I would claim that voting ignorance is voting for Bush. Not partisan, but voting for him is.

-=Lohrno

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » November 14, 2004, 7:56 pm

The worst school system is DC. DC voted by a higher margin for kerry than any other. How can you even try to defend such a stupid position? Incredible.

Rivera Bladestrike · November 14, 2004, 8:25 pm

You just pointed out the extreme outlier Rekaar, not to mention DC isn't even a state, the one and only area that voted democrat that has bad school systems, and whats the population there? Compare that.
Of the top 10 state education systems:
1-10: 8 went to Kerry, 2 went to Bush
So 8 of Kerry's 19 states placed in the top ten school systems, (top 7 were all Kerry).

Of the bottom 25 states, 20 of the 25 voted Bush, of the bottom 10, 8 were Bush, 2 were Kerry (bottom 7 were all Bush).

How could you say the quality of schooling cannot be a factor? Theres a distinct correlation of the worst schools in the nation voting Bush, and the best education systems in the nation voting Kerry.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » November 14, 2004, 9:41 pm

Because he takes it as a personal affront and so is not willing to admit that Bush's campaign of terror and candy appeals to yokels, because his faulty logic works that backwards and says you must be a yokel to support Bush.

Doesn't matter anyway, ya'll aren't getting any smarter. You can't spend your way out of trouble, and you can't expect an education system to take the parental role that bolsters kids and their performance.

I don't think the schools are *that* much better in the north, it's just too fucking cold up there to goof off outside/walk to your friends house all year like you can in the south. And/or their parents are more "engaged" with their kids.

You'd think it was about spending on education, but you spend more than a lot of countries. Only huge difference I can see is you piss a lot of that spending away on sport; it's mostly self-funded here, and if there was really some kid that had trouble paying for a bus ticket or something we'd have a raffle.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » November 14, 2004, 9:51 pm

Umm the state of Michigan voted for Kerry, and the only way to get an education in the public schools of Michigan is to educate yourself.

BTW the rich schools, those with the best attendance, graduation records etc are almost all suburban or rural, the worst schools are urban. Urbanites voted Kerry 7 to one over suburban and rural dwellers. So the least educated voted Kerry.

Rivera Bladestrike · November 14, 2004, 10:16 pm

If you go by the "smartest state" rankings, its the exact same ranking...

http://www.morganquitno.com/edrank.htm

And no, we don't spend most of the money on sport, ask Texas about spending money on sport.

Sports are funded almost souly by the parents in northern states since the board of ed only cares about more teachers, more desks, and more buses.

I'm trying to think of an argument for the two arguments presented, but honestly i don't see any points that are actually legitimate.

Michigan was rated 31 overall, so its not even a state to argue about. Fact is 20 of the bottom 25 states voted Bush.

Seebs · Post by **Seebs** » November 15, 2004, 11:51 am

I hope Moore's next movie is a documentary on his wn suicide. I'd pay for that baby!

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » November 15, 2004, 3:32 pm

Seebs wrote:I hope Moore's next movie is a documentary on his wn suicide. I'd pay for that baby!

I'd be happy with "How to emigrate from the US". I'll kick in some cash if he uses his own experiences as a guide while moving to Quebec. I'll even help him pack.

Lets see (#1 was highest):

43 California
35 Oregon
30 Washington
24 Illinois

Those 4 more than offset the high scores from MA and NY. The other NE states have such a small population they aren't worth mentioning.

Try again.

Rivera Bladestrike · November 15, 2004, 3:45 pm

You really think 4 states between 24-43 offset? Thats ridiculous considering ALL of the other states between 24 and 50 are Bush votes.

You're saying that because there are 4 states in the bottom 25, that outweighs TWENTY more going in the opposite? Its plainly obvious to anyone that isn't a fucking moron that there is a correlation between education and which way the vote went.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » November 15, 2004, 4:07 pm

Rivera Bladestrike wrote:You're saying that because there are 4 states in the bottom 25, that outweighs TWENTY more going in the opposite?

I'm too lazy to look it up, but I'd bet those 4 states together have a population in excess of the other 21.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » November 15, 2004, 4:53 pm

So now having discredited your flawed concept of ignorance being partisan, do you still cling to it as validation of your party superiority?

If you don't think you've been discredited, you haven't been reading. Your arrogance is absolutely unreal

Here's another one. Why do the top performers of society overwhelmingly vote Republican? 'Cause they're stupid? Get off the high horse and recognize that your ideas just suck sometimes k?

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » November 15, 2004, 5:19 pm

Many at the bottom have major immigration problems, and still have undeveloped country side or a large underdeveloped school systems for minorities, and we know how they vote. Heh Alaska, Alabama!

BTW heres the torpedo to your moronic arguement.

Did you actually read the exit polls?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5297138/

From the actual voters, not some guys opinion on VV that wants to bash Bush supporters!

Some numbers from it:
Category % Total Kerry Bush Nader
Under $15,000 8 63 36 0
$15,000-$29,999 15 57 42 0
$30,000-$49,999 22 50 49 0
$50,000-$74,999 23 43 56 0
$75,000-$99,999 14 45 55 0
$100,000-$149,999 11 42 57 1
$150,000-$199,999 4 42 58 -
$200,000 or more 3 35 63 1

Hmm, so I guess common knowledge is that lower income people are better educated by your arguement?

Some more numbers:
VOTE BY RACE AND GENDER BUSH
KERRY NADER
TOTAL 2004 2000 2004 2004

White Men (36%) 62% n/a 37% 0%

White Women (41%) 55% n/a 44% 0%

Non-White Men (10%) 30% n/a 67% 1%

Non-White Women (12%) 24% n/a 75% 1%

We all know white men are the most uneducated, atleast that is what your arguement would suggest.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/ ... lls.0.html

Some other numbers:
VOTE BY RACE BUSH
KERRY NADER
TOTAL 2004 2000 2004 2004

White (77%) 58% +4 41% 0%

African-American (11%) 11% +2 88% 0%

Latino (8%) 44% +9 53% 2%

Asian (2%) 44% +3 56% *

Other (2%) 40% +1 54% 2%

We know white people set themselves up in the worse school systems.

Some more numbers:
VOTE BY EDUCATION BUSH
KERRY NADER
TOTAL 2004 2000 2004 2004

No High School (4%) 49% +10 50% 0%

H.S. Graduate (22%) 52% +3 47% 0%

Some College (32%) 54% +3 46% 0%

College Graduate (26%) 52% +1 46% 1%

Postgrad Study (16%) 44% +0 55% 1%

Ok you got one number to back your arguement !!! Pin heads did vote for Kerry we got to many lawyers and college professors!

Notice Bush went up in every category of education but Pin Heads(Elitist). Notice the +10 for Bush this election from last election on the non high school educated...That is a result of him increasing his Hispanic vote, as the numbers go together. But even with that, Kerry still won the vote of the uneducated. Gore won it by +11 or basically 59%(Gore) to 39%(Bush). Un-educated go with the Democrat party once again. College and some College goto Bush in Both elections. High School grads goto Bush this election but Gore during 2000 so basically a wash.

Some more numbers:
VOTE BY SIZE OF COMMUNITY BUSH
KERRY NADER
TOTAL 2004 2000 2004 2004

Big Cities (13%) 39% +13 60% *

Smaller Cities (19%) 49% +9 49% 0%

Suburbs (45%) 52% +3 47% 0%

Small Towns (8%) 50% -9 48% 1%

Rural (16%) 59% +0 40% 1%

We know cities are known to have the best school system(gag), I guess that is why people with income and a education goto the suburbs to get there children un-educated.

Numbers from election 2000:
Vote by Education All Gore Bush Buchanan Nader
No H.S. Degree 5 % 59 % 39 % 1 % 1 %
High School Graduate 21 % 48 % 49 % 1 % 1 %
Some College 32 % 45 % 51 % 0 % 3 %
College Graduate 24 % 45 % 51 % 0 % 3 %
Post-Graduate Degree 18 % 52 % 44 % 0 % 3 %

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/result ... polls.html

Vote By Education All Clinton Dole Perot
No High School 6 59 28 11
High School Graduate 24 51 35 13
Some College 27 48 40 10
College Graduate 26 44 46 8
Post-Graduate 17 52 40 5
No College Degree 57 51 37 11
College Graduates 43 47 44 7
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/ele ... ndex1.html

Other elections taking to much time to look up, but numbers are basically the same.
Democrats=Pin Heads and un-educated once again.

And that Bush increased his number in all categories, but Pin Heads.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » November 15, 2004, 5:32 pm

Not to mention the fact that 5 of the "top ten" either went to Bush or were extremely close swing states that could have gone either way.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » November 15, 2004, 6:02 pm

Are all of these taken from the same exit polls that were so off?