That’s what’s going on here as well, this is an explanation of the second joke and, in a somewhat meta circumstance, an explanation of this joke. Because what I’m doing here is repeatedly reiterating that the joke is repeated reiteration of the second joke, which was an explanation of the first joke and, by transitivity, an explanation of the third joke. The third joke, of course, is this joke, which I am explaining to you now just in case the exact intention is unclear. And I hope it isn’t unclear at this point because I’m really taking my time explaining exactly what the joke is supposed to be: the joke is that I keep explaining the joke, you see. And, really, this is just a further explanation of the first, second and third jokes because that’s how this kind of comedy works.

Oh, man, you should have been in Ohio for the primary. “Mutual rejection of free trade” does not do it justice.

(One consoles oneself with the fact that they’re probably both lying, but when that’s the extent of the silver lining it’s hard to get really fired up for the next administration.)

You see, I was implying that you read Common Sense and then make all of your decisions based on it. And that’s funny, because it’s mostly about overthrowing the rule of the crown in the colonies.”

THAT part I got. I know that much about it. I meant I’ll take your word for the fact that he’s a genius. I guess what I actually mean to say doesn’t always translate well in comments on blogs. Oops.

But then he wrote a book about how much religion sucked, and they didn’t take too kindly to that.

You see, I was implying that you read Common Sense and then make all of your decisions based on it. And that’s funny, because it’s mostly about overthrowing the rule of the crown in the colonies. Which would be an anachronism, owing to the US not having been ruled by the crown for some time now. So the joke is that you use a revolutionary tract to make decisions about every day life like, “Will I do the laundry today?” or “Should my cats form a nation independent of my parlimentary system in which they don’t receive representation?” And that would be funny, right, because of course cats can’t vote.

And while while we’re at it, what were the compelling reasons to vote for either of them? Other than racism or sexism, that is.

For me, none. Their mutual rejection of free trade and likelihood of raising taxes, amongst other factors, makes voting for either an impossibility. Not to mention the fact that there will likely be a Democratic Congress.

If you’re a Democrat, however, I’d argue that Obama has substantially less baggage and a better chance of beating McCain. As far as substantive policy differences there aren’t really any… which is why voting patterns this primary have largely broken down racial lines.

I’ll have to take your word for it, Timothy. The last time I read Thomas Paine, it was due to the threat of pain of failure (pun totally intended) from my AP History teacher. Don’t remember much about it.

Heh, touché.

“What were the compelling reasons to vote for her?”

Who said there were any? (Not me. And while while we’re at it, what were the compelling reasons to vote for either of them? Other than racism or sexism, that is.)

Explain middle America to me, Olly. Please.

“The candidate I favor would totally win if only the candidate you favor would succumb to the inevitable and drop out of this two-candidate race! So nyah! (And by the way, you’re a racist.)”

C’mon, dude, this barely even works in the ASUO any more.

I doubt that 60% of white voters are really going to the polls thinking “I’m not going to vote for a black guy.”

Well…

First, only 53% of Clinton voters say they would vote for Obama. A quarter of her supporters would cross party lines and vote for John McCain and 18% would stay home.

As for Obama voters, 69% say they would vote for Hillary Clinton if she ends up the nominee against McCain; 16% would vote for McCain and 13% would stay home.

Of course, if there were a compelling reason to vote for Hillary over Obama then I might agree that a large portion of her base weren’t racists. Regrettably, however, none exist other than her lack of a Y chromosome and adorable cackle.

I don’t know how much stock to put in this stuff. As far as I know, the math still works out so that Obama is almost guaranteed to get the nomination, and he won some predominantly white places, so I think these polls might have more to do with issues relating to other things with those voters (age, religion, region, concerns with jobs, etc) than solely with race. I doubt that 60% of white voters are really going to the polls thinking “I’m not going to vote for a black guy.”

A 60/40 split in favor Clinton though? That’s gotta be because white voters don’t want a black President, even though there’s not a single iota of evidence to back up that claim.

The article is basically saying that if Obama loses (in the primary or in the general), then the chief cause is white racism. I think that’s an incredibly bold statement to make and one which, as I’ve noted, doesn’t seem to have any evidence support it.