The GOP is in trouble...

[alexw]

It doesn't always have to be a conspiracy. Maybe smarter people just tend to be more liberal.

Intelligence correlates with inquisitiveness, open-mindedness, and evidence based reasoning. Ergo intelligent people are going to be more liberal given that republicans favor the exact opposite - rigidity, close mindedness, and belief over evidence. Given that the population as a whole is slowly becoming more intelligent over time (due to increasing levels of education among the young) this spells yet more trouble for the republican party.

[Spectral]

It doesn't always have to be a conspiracy. Maybe smarter people just tend to be more liberal.

This seems like a pretty bold claim given how small the actual electoral splits are. In 2014, college grads voted slightly in favor of Republicans (source). People making over $100K voted 57-41 in favor of Republicans, a much larger split than the education split - does this imply that Republicans are just smarter at making money than Democrats?

[akris15]

Something's a little funky about their data. In the 2014 election, Asians split right down the middle, 50-49 in favor of Republicans (source), which doesn't jibe with stated preferences in this 2014 poll. Whites voted 60-38 in favor of Republicans, a much larger split than suggested in this poll. This would lead me to think asking about preferences undercounts Republican votes, which matter a lot more than stated preferences.

Not really your point, just something that caught my eye.

2014 was an off year election which means only people who actually care about politics (which is a very small amount of the population)or, the case in 2014, people who are really P***** off at the government comes out. Generally if you are happy with where you stand people for some reason don't come out and vote in non-presidential election years. Personally i think that's sad but it is what it is.

- - - Updated - - -

This seems like a pretty bold claim given how small the actual electoral splits are. In 2014, college grads voted slightly in favor of Republicans (source). People making over $100K voted 57-41 in favor of Republicans, a much larger split than the education split - does this imply that Republicans are just smarter at making money than Democrats?

The reason why the $100k+ plus vote Republican is not based on social issues but because Republicans are the less taxes party. For example my uncle is an oncologist. He makes a lot of money. He hates the Republicans based on their social issues. He votes Republican. Why? Because Republicans make him more money by charging less in taxes.

[Spectral]

The reason why the $100k+ plus vote Republican is not based on social issues but because Republicans are the less taxes party. For example my uncle is an oncologist. He makes a lot of money. He hates the Republicans based on their social issues. He votes Republican. Why? Because Republicans make him more money by charging less in taxes.

I'm not sure what your point is. My point is that it's maybe not such a great idea to say, "my side is just smarter". I am not seriously contemplating the notion that Republicans are smarter. The differences in votes are about preferences and values, not one side being "smarter".

[alexw]

Something's a little funky about their data. In the 2014 election, Asians split right down the middle, 50-49 in favor of Republicans (source), which doesn't jibe with stated preferences in this 2014 poll. Whites voted 60-38 in favor of Republicans, a much larger split than suggested in this poll. This would lead me to think asking about preferences undercounts Republican votes, which matter a lot more than stated preferences.

Not really your point, just something that caught my eye.

It does not under count republican votes in the way you seem to be suggesting. 2014 was an off-year election. Off years have radically different electorate profiles vs presidential election years. The data I linked is the whole electorate profile not of who votes in off-years. In presidential election years the electorate is much more similar to the whole electorate thus the chart is much more representative of what will happen in 2016 (and similarly happened in 2012).

[Endus]

I'm not sure what your point is. My point is that it's maybe not such a great idea to say, "my side is just smarter". I am not seriously contemplating the notion that Republicans are smarter. The differences in votes are about preferences and values, not one side being "smarter".

I wouldn't say that either side is smarter, but there's a serious underlying trend of anti-intellectualism in the American Right. That's where all this "liberal indoctrination in education" stuff comes from; they see knowledge as the enemy for some ridiculous reason.

Obviously, doesn't apply to ALL Republicans, I'm just saying there's a pretty significant strand within the party that leans that way.

[Spectral]

It does not under count republican votes in the way you seem to be suggesting. 2014 was an off-year election. Off years have radically different electorate profiles vs presidential election years. The data I linked is the whole electorate profile not of who votes in off-years. In presidential election years the electorate is much more similar to the whole electorate thus the chart is much more representative of what will happen in 2016 (and similarly happened in 2012).

This does not strike me as particularly useful data. I do not have any good reason to care about the electoral preferences of people that don't vote. An aggregate of 2012/2014 exit polling seems much more instructive than asking everyone.

- - - Updated - - -

I wouldn't say that either side is smarter, but there's a serious underlying trend of anti-intellectualism in the American Right. That's where all this "liberal indoctrination in education" stuff comes from.

Are you sure the "liberal indoctrination in education" thing doesn't come from professors actually being overwhelmingly liberal? It's not like the American Right cooked that narrative up from nowhere. I'm never really all that surprised when the Blue Tribe and Red Tribe don't trust each other all that much and academia doesn't seem like an obvious exception to that.

I'm irritated by Republican anti-intellectual campaigning, of course, but I can easily see why religious, right-wing Americans don't trust universities.

[Machismo]

I wouldn't say that either side is smarter, but there's a serious underlying trend of anti-intellectualism in the American Right. That's where all this "liberal indoctrination in education" stuff comes from; they see knowledge as the enemy for some ridiculous reason.

Obviously, doesn't apply to ALL Republicans, I'm just saying there's a pretty significant strand within the party that leans that way.

I think both parties have a very large segment that are willfully ignorant. Sure, there's probably a higher percentage of Republicans who ignore things like global warming, but there's plenty of Democrats and liberals who swear that vaccines and GMO foods are the Devil.

[BuckSparkles]

I wouldn't say that either side is smarter, but there's a serious underlying trend of anti-intellectualism in the American Right. That's where all this "liberal indoctrination in education" stuff comes from; they see knowledge as the enemy for some ridiculous reason.

Obviously, doesn't apply to ALL Republicans, I'm just saying there's a pretty significant strand within the party that leans that way.

It's not knowledge. It's preference for liberal talking points. No opposing view was offered.

For example, in a HS science class, we watched that one Al gore documentary, and we also watched some Michael Moore thing. I can't imagine my school was the only one who did that type of "teaching."

We never watched anything that might contradict either of those two.

After enough time, people become used to those opinions becoming the norm. That is what is meant by liberal indoctrination.

[Endus]

Are you sure the "liberal indoctrination in education" thing doesn't come from professors actually being overwhelmingly liberal? It's not like the American Right cooked that narrative up from nowhere.

You're explaining the irrational arguments that they use to defend it. The claim is still wildly irrational. A professor leaning left politically does not mean they're "indoctrinating" anyone.

I think both parties have a very large segment that are willfully ignorant. Sure, there's probably a higher percentage of Republicans who ignore things like global warming, but there's plenty of Democrats and liberals who swear that vaccines and GMO foods are the Devil.

I'm not speaking of general ignorance, which is obviously independent of party. I'm talking specifically of anti-intellectualism; speaking out against education itself.

It's not knowledge. It's preference for liberal talking points. No opposing view was offered.

For example, in a HS science class, we watched that one Al gore documentary, and we also watched some Michael Moore thing. I can't imagine my school was the only one who did that type of "teaching."

We never watched anything that might contradict either of those two.

I have no idea what Moore film you watched, but I assume the Gore film was An Inconvenient Truth. There is no "contradictory" view that isn't manufactured and dishonest propaganda. Science isn't partisan. At best, you might have found a more technical outlook, since I'll freely admit that An Inconvenient Truth is a little preachy in tone.

[zenkai]

You're discussing specific candidates within the party. The topic of the thread is the party itself. In my opinion, the GOP, as a whole, is in much more trouble than the Democrats.

Of course it's that way, when democrats get a free ride from the press from any scrutiny, the public is going to sway that way. If the press swung the other way it would be a whole different argument.

[TZucchini]

This seems like a pretty bold claim given how small the actual electoral splits are. In 2014, college grads voted slightly in favor of Republicans (source). People making over $100K voted 57-41 in favor of Republicans, a much larger split than the education split - does this imply that Republicans are just smarter at making money than Democrats?

Republicans haven't won the "postgraduate" vote in an election since 1988. So by that metric, I don't find it to be too bold a claim.

[Spectral]

Republicans haven't won the "postgraduate" vote in an election since 1988. So by that metric, I don't find it too be too bold a claim.

Again the splits just aren't the impressively large sorts of numbers that people think they are. I find it much more likely preference for Democrats among graduates is a cultural preference than one based on intellect. For example, among educated people, it's fashionable to be against wars, which generally lines up with stated Democrat principles (although the actual policies seem pretty squishy here).

In any case, the differences just aren't anywhere near as large as people think they are.

[Machismo]

You're explaining the irrational arguments that they use to defend it. The claim is still wildly irrational. A professor leaning left politically does not mean they're "indoctrinating" anyone.



I'm not speaking of general ignorance, which is obviously independent of party. I'm talking specifically of anti-intellectualism; speaking out against education itself.



I have no idea what Moore film you watched, but I assume the Gore film was An Inconvenient Truth. There is no "contradictory" view that isn't manufactured and dishonest propaganda. Science isn't partisan. At best, you might have found a more technical outlook, since I'll freely admit that An Inconvenient Truth is a little preachy in tone.

I will agree with you, that anti-intellectualism is actually part of the GOP platform.

[WernerCD]

You're discussing specific candidates within the party. The topic of the thread is the party itself. In my opinion, the GOP, as a whole, is in much more trouble than the Democrats.

The fact that the Democrat party has a criminal (She supports and defends her rapist husband, wasn't there at the 3am call that lead to dead Americans and if anyone ANYONE else had A SINGLE bit of Top Secret in anything remotely personal their career would be over or they would be in federal prison) and a socialist (who is basically getting votes by promising FREE! everything) as their chosen leaders - tells me that the Democrat part is in trouble as well...

[Naxere]

Science isn't partisan.

Curious if you've read this: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2...ntific-regress

[WernerCD]

The 'socialist' who is actually in fact a centrist has had the media machine against him from day 1. That's not a fault of the democratic party, rather the mainstream media.

Centrist? Sanders is "radical left" by every stretch of the imagination... Love him or Hate him, he is in no way, shape or form "Centrist" or "Moderate".

[Theodarzna]

This seems like a pretty bold claim given how small the actual electoral splits are. In 2014, college grads voted slightly in favor of Republicans (source). People making over $100K voted 57-41 in favor of Republicans, a much larger split than the education split - does this imply that Republicans are just smarter at making money than Democrats?

The Business schools have been turning more conservative since the Powell Memo.

[BuckSparkles]

I will agree with you, that anti-intellectualism is actually part of the GOP platform.

"You are whatever gender or race you identify as."

And left wing folks are not anti-intellectual?

[Heladys]

I find that political compass prediction to be false.

Clinton is like, entirely left on social politics, and mostly left on economical.
'
What is she, maybe a little right on foreign policy?

And no way Jeb is that high at either. Guy was super tame and moderate.

Cruz I do agree with being the furthest right, but Trump should not be near him. Because Trump doesn't have that strong religious conviction.

Your entire basis for comparison and understanding is flawed. You're living within a fishbowl and comparing things based upon that warped context.