English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

My friend and I had a discussion on this, but neither one of us had a reliable source.

2007-03-11 04:49:55 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

I thought of one way to figure this out using reliable sources. The US census has, by county, the percentage of people that are high school graduates, and the percentage of people that have a Bachelor's degree or higher.
By overlaying the election political party statistics, a pattern should emerge. Both of those sources are fairly reliable.

2007-03-11 06:22:31 · update #1

7 answers

there is no correlation

2007-03-11 04:54:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

'Reliable source'?

What, and have actual facts, rather than "Are not." "Are SO." "Are NOT." "Are SO."

How Un-American.

;-)

Sorry, I, too, don't -- though you've inspired me to look, I don't know where.

In the past, I had heard and read from a variety of sources that Republicans, as a group, had more years of schooling.

The rich tend to be Republican, and education correlates with wealth.

The not-rich but not-poor were more all over the place (I THINK), and the poor were Democrats, on the whole; the party that used to be good to them.

However, it's my understanding we've been switching around, and that might not hold any more.

Dunno about party affiliation, but in the last two elections, the split was between urban and rural, more than any other single thing.

City folk tended to vote Democrat, country, Republican. (There were some cool maps after '04 election, made from precinct-level data showing red --> purple --> blue where you could really see this.)

I'd suggest Gallup's web site, as it's the one I (used to be) most familiar with, but their non-recent stuff tends to be in the "Subscribe to get at this" area, rather than the freebie area.

It's possible that www.census.gov would have this, but I don't know whether they ask party affiliation.

Of course the correlation isn't perfect, as there'd be loads of exceptions, whichever way it went.

I wonder if League of Women Voters would have this.

2007-03-11 12:40:20 · answer #2 · answered by tehabwa 7 · 0 0

I don't think there is an intelligence correlation, but there is a profession correlation surely. Libs are typically more involved in social work and education, or the like (not all but many). Cons are generally the entrepreneurs or the the entrepreneurial type (not all but many).

Neither is better than the other although many will comment to the contrary.

2007-03-11 12:34:30 · answer #3 · answered by Beachman 5 · 0 0

I'd also like to know. A good friend of mine is a retired college professor. He claims that as a group more Mensa members are democrats. IQ notwithstanding he says that the more educated you are the smaller the chances are you'll be a republican. He sees the GOP as the party of the working class who (being largely unexposed to higher education) tends to make decisions based on emotions, faith or superstition. He makes some other compelling arguments (some of which are supported by Juliet Schor in the Overspent American) about income strata, TV and lottery consumption habits of people who are low and middle income. He concludes that having a low or middle income is often the outcome of low or basic levels of education.

I'm starring your question. I'm a political centerist. It would be nice to be able to have an informed discourse that refutes the unchallnged assumptions of my cohorts.

2007-03-11 12:00:54 · answer #4 · answered by Goofy Foot 5 · 0 0

probably not a good one, meaning one that doesn't have an axe of some kind to grind.

i also 100% reject the stereotypes that the politicians and their paid parasite pundits love to advance - that all business is republican friendly or all unions are democratic friendly.

i also think that it's high time that we advanced in our thinking beyond stereotypical views of one another.

gererally, when people are in such a rush to label one another, it's so that you can find a reason to not listen to what other people have to say.

if you look at the level of discourse in our country right now, that seems to be happening to a very high degree.

it's pretty sad.

i think our grandparents perhaps didn't know any better than to accept stereotypes - there was just no awareness.

i don't think the current generation can use that as an excuse.

we are being led by people (politicians) who want us all to hate one another.

it's high time we viewed our 'leaders' for what they really are - the lowest moral class in our nation. when you think about it, no one even comes close...

2007-03-11 11:58:12 · answer #5 · answered by nostradamus02012 7 · 1 0

I can't find any good stats on this, Not usually this hard.

2007-03-11 11:58:48 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

"Noooooooooo!"

2007-03-11 11:59:06 · answer #7 · answered by orange sky 6 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers