Among voters with postgraduate degrees (hardly the stereotypical lazy, poor, dumb minority Obama voter, instead closer to the exalted "job creator"), Obama beat Romney by 13%.
See The Economist, Oct 10 edition, article "The remaking of the president"
I suppose it is because they are just less gullible. For instance, they are unlikely to believe the claims that a company cutting jobs while integrating 10 acquisitions is making those job cuts due to Obamacare.
Clearly--education did not make you very smart. Romney was criticized for Bain Capital cutting jobs throughout the campaign but it seems you (supporting Obama) feel it is OK for Stryker to acquire and then cut jobs. Perhaps advanced degrees add more confusion to a simple mind. Job cuts are job cuts regardless of Dem. or Repub.
I do feel it is OK to acquire and then cut jobs to increase corporate efficiency and promote synergies. I don't feel it is OK to acquire, take out a loan from the acquisition to pay you back for the acquisition cost, and then have the company ship the jobs overseas so it can pay back the loan. Those are nothing more than bookkeeping tricks which generate nothing of real value, but instead just shift the profits from one pocket to another.
I also don't feel it is OK to acquire, cut jobs, and then blame the cuts on something else like Obamacare.