How did these post graduate majors vote? (2012)

[barfbag]

MD (doctors)
JD (Lawyers)
MBA (Business Administration)
Pharmacy
MPA (Public Administration)
Urban Planning
Education
Astronomy
Public Health
Religion
Social Work
Engineering

MD- Republican
JD- Democrat
Pharmacy- Republican
MBA- Republican
MPA- don't know
Urban Planning- Democrat
Education- Democrat
Public Health- Democrat
Astronomy- Republican
Social Work- Democrat
Engineer- Republican
Religion- Democrat

[barfbag]

^^^

Astronomers would vote for a party with a large contingent who believes the earth is 6,000 years old??

The science field tends to be Republican while the liberal arts voters tend to be more Democratic. However, we've seen in many elections where those with post graduate degrees vote at a higher percentage for Democrats than those with a 4 year college degree.

[barfbag]

I agree with Badger. Based on demographics alone, I would guess that most post graduate students skew heavily Democratic. Heck, very few people in advanced academia skew Republican.

This is true. Other than professionals such as doctors and lawyers though, most Republican professions don't require a post-graduate degree. Instead they go out and make money after college.

[barfbag]

You guys seem to be equating post-grad religion with clergy or people working in organized religion. That might be partially true, but at least a large minority of them are academics, religious historians, people who study comparative religion, etc; who obviously are very liberal. Really need to break down that category.

I myself am one of them; a religion scholar and let me tell you our department is full of liberals. They're not very liberal, but solid Democrats. The clergy at the schools I've attended lean Republican; purplish red to light red. What I've been fortunate enough to avoid is liberal professors who bring every topic of discussion back to Bush and Iraq. There's a lot of that to watch out for in academia. My religion classes helped to make me the happy moderate that I am, but didn't turn me to the dark side. I've become quite a critical thinker.

[barfbag]

The setting one works in is more of an influence than the education they were part of.

[barfbag]

Scientists strongly lean Democratic, according to this Pew study.
http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/
55% of scientists are lean democrats; 6%(!) are republicans. Counting in leaners, the figure is about 81% democratic.

As such, I would expect science postgrads to have strongly supported Obama.

Some reasons for this:

a) A large proportion of scientists work in the public center
b) They are disproportionately agnostic; almost none are evangelicals (see chart at bottom).
c) Scientists of today (as opposed to say, 150 years ago) are much more interconnected throughout the globe. There is much less nationalistic rivalry as opposed to that between Germany and Britain in the early 20th century. Thus, they are strongly internationalist (and therefore do not take kindly to anti-UN rhetoric).
d) They spend longer getting degrees, therefore more time is spent in predominantly liberal postgrad cities.

e) (Much of the) Republican party's support for anti-scientific views: Support for ID/YE Creationism, scepticism/denial of global warming. When President Bush declared his support for teaching ID and evolution as "competing theories", it really showed the problems Republicans have with science. Scientists are probably less likely to vote for such a party.

The more likely answer is that their funding comes from Democrats. Both parties and their factions are driven by income. That's how the world works.

[barfbag]

Hmmm... if all the scientists'funding came from democrats (which it doesn't) that would de facto make the Republican party the anti-science party would it not?

And one's income does not dictate how one will vote; or else the republicans wouldn't win elections. Also, the fact that the states that get the most money from the federal government are Republican states, and vice versa for Democratic states (poignantly shown by the Christie-Paul feud).

Many of these states (including West Virginia, Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi) are among the country's poorest. The reason they vote for republicans is because of social issues.

No because what you're referring to is Republican rhetoric from the campaign trail as opposed to what really happens in congress. I don't know what this has to do with income. Just because a state gets money from the federal government doesn't mean they want it. The correct measurement would be to ask voters if they want the federal government involved so much. I agree they vote Republican because of social issues too, but people who are socially conservative tend to favor lower taxes and the right to work. Very few people hold views outside of their own party.

[barfbag]

Doctors, however, do not seem to be as liberal. I see more of a liberal trend occurring over several decades, in part a result of the general educational elite moving towards the democrats. However, doctors are more conservative than scientists probably because they operate in a more corporate setting; there is less public sector influence.

Doctors aren't as liberal as lawyers or academics, but they are far less Republican than they were 40 years ago.

But physicians are, on the whole, terrible with money. Most of them will never take an accounting or management course in their lives. That's why they tend to let the billing service they outsource their accounts to do the worrying about the money. My father has had years of post-doctoral training from some of the top teaching hospitals in the country. But if I try to go over his retirement accounts with him, basic math and financial terminology go completely over his head. If I ask him what medical procedures have the highest profit margins for him or what patient demographic generates the most revenue for his practice, he can't tell me. And most doctors can't. It's part of the reason they're such easy marks for pharmaceutical reps and people selling medical equipment.

I attribute that to the reason that most physicians, when they opt for public office, tend to be truly awful legislators and administrators.

Since when are legislators good with money? 99% of voters are more qualified to be in congress than your average congressman today.

[barfbag]

I worked in hospital administration for a few years (including during the 2012 election) and all of the top executives were Democrats. I walked into the office one day and they were all laughing about Palin's comments about Libya. I think the anti-science/anti-intellectual wing of the GOP really turns off people in the medical field. They should be voting Republican based on their income levels, however it's hard to pull the lever for a candidate who stands for everything that your profession doesn't.

I bet I can't stand uninformed people either. Overall I'd think the medical field is divided though.

[barfbag]

E

I bet I can't stand uninformed people either.

Someone with better cut and copy capacity than I do on my phone please get this to the irony ore mine post-haste.

I bet George Voinovich could do it.

[barfbag]

What's your obsession with my favorite retired senator?

I don't know, but I tease him about it because he has an obsession with being harder on Republicans than Democrats.