24 Comments

I am shocked to learn that conservative hacks have a place in such academic exemplars as Clemson and Auburn.

Expand full comment

Sure, but Clemson also has some of the finest academic minds...in South Carolina.

Expand full comment

Like commenting.

Expand full comment

"There never really was a man from Nantucket"

I think you may be wrong here because I know for a fact that his shwantz was so long he could suck it. Although, it was a very sad story that did not end well for the man, because of where he decided to tuck it and of course what the police later found in the bucket.

Expand full comment

This is a trick answer, right?

Expand full comment

My god.

Expand full comment

"Woodard said he was trying to prove that race has no bearing on whether whites vote for political candidates."

A poll designed to prove a pre-conceived (and profoundly wrong) conclusion? What could possibly go wrong?

Expand full comment

"“The people of West Virginia spoke with a sure and strong voice that they desire a different direction for our state.”

And then the candidate they elected switched parties. Problem solved, GOP-style.

Expand full comment

Well, this guy got arrested, so there is a difference.

Expand full comment

Some of America's most brilliant leaders, guided by Woodard's rigorous, highly scientific data. Or not.

Expand full comment

I miss Pryor. We needed him around to cut thru the ludicrous BS that the wingnuts have been throwing at Bams because of Preznitting while Blah. I can only imagine and fall short of how amazing he would have been with this material to work with.

Expand full comment

<i>"Dok Zoom is ... a rhetoric/composition PhD"</i>

I assume they made you write your own diploma. Then graded it.

Expand full comment

I was in Wal-mart (hangs head in shame) and noticed bags of cotton balls on the shelf. So I picked one up. I'm a cotton picker! And I have the selfie to prove it.

Expand full comment

That's some mighty fine research ya done there Nixon_So_Fine.

Expand full comment

Stating that you conducted your "survey" in order to prove a contentious political point kind of undermines its validity, no? Or even reveals it as nothing more than a polemical tool? Because bias, cherry-picking, begging the question, etc. IOW, this survey's results are worth less than the pixels used to display them.

Expand full comment

Teatards will gladly look beyond race if a candidate is derpy enough. But if not, they reserve the right to pass around photoshops of said candidate/elected official as a witch doctor and watermelon joke. It's not racist because something.

Expand full comment