Well before you talk about clown degrees then maybe tell us what you studied - because it clearly was not maths or anything similar since you struggle with understanding correlations and probability.
LOL ! So as usual, when you can't prove your "point", you are going down to these childish bullshits. You are using terms which you simply don't understand. We're not talking about coin flipping here but about human choices with huge deviations across districts and damn load of "unknown". In order to extrapolate correlation into general population, you need to first measure the actual correlation between variabilities using a significant sample representing "observations" with structure resembling that of general population in regard to the residence, age etc.
The way you try to do, you could as well "prove" that blacks in America are rich because... those playing in NBA or working in Hollywood make big bucks. That would make as much "sense" as your "most educated voting districts". Clinton had big support among lefty "professors" but also in minority ghettos and the later were far more numerous.
Quite objective data on education of voters actually were collected, you can easily google them up, things like "49 percent of college graduates voted for Mrs. Clinton, 45 percent for Mr. Trump". So the actual diff isn't big and when one dig into it, it turns out that often these are call center kids vs their parents, who paid for the useless "degrees" of those snowflakes. So who's "more clever" here ?
It's nothing but shameless manipulation of desperate globalists losing their power and lemings like you just spread this nonsense thinking it makes them belong to the "better" part of the population.