“Neither of the NPR employees voted for Bush”

[dazzleman]

Not you.
Most other Republicans would, though.
I remember quite a few threads on "Why do Blacks not vote for us" in the run up to the election and while the wording was different, basically that's what most Reps (not you) said.

Both parties have people who say that those who vote for the other party are simply stupid.

In some cases, it's true, and in others it is not.  Plenty of very stupid people vote Democratic, as well as Republican.  I know highly ignorant Republicans who vote generally the same way as I do, but for very different reasons.  And when you get people in elite sections of Manhattan voting the same way as people in Bronx housing projects, you are seeing a different variation of the same phenomenon.

I think it's counterproductive to argue that people who vote for the other party are stupid.  You'll never pick up their votes that way.  Shira is echoing the same line as Howard Dean, and I don't see it attracting new voters to the party.

[J. J.]

That isn't an outstanding statistical relationship graduating high school and who wins the state.

I was surprised to see that California, hardly Bush country, was in the bottom ten.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-550.pdf

That doesn't show how good a state does graduating students from high school, but rather how good wherever they were living when they were 16 to 18.  If someone is 70, they were in HS at a time when about 65% of students graduated, and only 40% of the adult population over 25 was a HS graduate.  For someone who is 55 or younger, they were in HS at a time when 86-88% of students graduated (a rate that has now held for close to 40 years).

A state that has a relatively low component of older persons (such as those in the West that have had high growth, will have a larger percentage of adults who have completed high school.   But this is just another way of saying that they have a relatively large share of adults under 55.  States that have seen large scale emigration may have low levels of adult completion.  People move more in their 20s and 30s.  If a HS graduate leaves the state, then the relative share of older adults increases, and the overall HS completion rate decreases.

I have to disagree.  It really doesn't matter where the voter was educated, but where the voter voted.  This is, to an extent, a reflexion of the electorate.

The Hispanic population doesn't explain RI at all. 

What I find interesting is that you have a TX and CA in the bottom 10, that have voted completely oppositely in the last 5 elections and MN and ND in the top 10 that have voted completely oppositely in the last 5 elections.  The latter pair actually have split in every election since 1972, but in three of those a favorite son was on the ticket from MN.

I'm not seeing education as being the controlling factor.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

CA's educational system fell apart long before that, jfern.  They were the first to adopt the experimental education methods from the 60s and early 70s.  They are now among the last to drop these widely discredited programs.

What experimental education methods? I've haeard that CA had pretty good schools before Prop. 13 was passed in 1978.

[jimrtex]

That isn't an outstanding statistical relationship graduating high school and who wins the state.

I was surprised to see that California, hardly Bush country, was in the bottom ten.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-550.pdf

That doesn't show how good a state does graduating students from high school, but rather how good wherever they were living when they were 16 to 18.  If someone is 70, they were in HS at a time when about 65% of students graduated, and only 40% of the adult population over 25 was a HS graduate.  For someone who is 55 or younger, they were in HS at a time when 86-88% of students graduated (a rate that has now held for close to 40 years).

A state that has a relatively low component of older persons (such as those in the West that have had high growth, will have a larger percentage of adults who have completed high school.   But this is just another way of saying that they have a relatively large share of adults under 55.  States that have seen large scale emigration may have low levels of adult completion.  People move more in their 20s and 30s.  If a HS graduate leaves the state, then the relative share of older adults increases, and the overall HS completion rate decreases.

I have to disagree. 

I don't think you understood what my point was.  When I said "[t]hat doesn't show ..." I was referring to what the census report shows.   It does not necessarily show how the HS in a state are doing since it reports on the percentage of adults older than 25 who lived in the state who had graduated from HS.  An adult who is 70 would have graduated (or not) over 50 years ago.  If he happened to live in the same state, then it shows how good the education system (at least in terms of keeping students in school until they are in 12th grade) was 50 years ago.   If the adult has moved since HS, then it measures how good the education system was at that time. 

At best, it might show how good a state is at attracting HS graduates, or at retaining them after graduation.  The attractor is usually the availablity of jobs.  NH attracts college graduates (almost all who are also HS graduates) who work in high tech firms in Massachusetts but who want to live where there are lower taxes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wasn't commenting on how HS graduates vote at all.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course not.  But my explanation about emigration may do so.  RI had modest growth up until about 1970.  It has been stagnant since then, increasing only by about 10% over 30 years.  This population stagnation began just about the time the baby boomers got out of HS/college and began their work career.  If the population isn't growing, it means that there are not jobs.   So the baby boomers, who will be more likely to have a HS degree than their parents, are going to move to Boston or New York or beyond in search of a job.  Someone who is 40 YO, with kids in school and a house are less likely to pull up stakes.   Among the young, there may even be differentiation on the basis of education, with those without a HS degree sticking around, working in lower-skilled jobs.
30 years later now, the relative share of the population that is around 50 is somewhat less than other states, while the relative share of the population that is in its 60s and 70s, is greater.  And this older population is less likely to have a HS degree (those who are 50 are just as likely as those who are 20).

An interesting chart in the census report is the one that shows the percentage of the adult population with a HS degree vs. the percentage of the population between 25 and 29 who have a HS degree.  For 40+ years the rate for 25-29 YO has stayed about the same, but the rate for the adult population has steadily increased, as the new adults replace the old adults as they die.  The increase in the rate for the US adult population is high enough that the current rate for Texas is about the national rate in the early 90s.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wasn't arguing that it was

[ATFFL]

CA's educational system fell apart long before that, jfern.  They were the first to adopt the experimental education methods from the 60s and early 70s.  They are now among the last to drop these widely discredited programs.

What experimental education methods? I've haeard that CA had pretty good schools before Prop. 13 was passed in 1978.

Personal grammar (there is no proper grammar, write how you want), personal spelling (same as above, for spelling), hands off science instruction (let the kids loose in a field so they can learn biology) and a variety of other hair-brained, highly unsuccessful programs got their start in California before Prop 13 ever saw the ballot box.  Some schools still practice them.

[dazzleman]

CA's educational system fell apart long before that, jfern.  They were the first to adopt the experimental education methods from the 60s and early 70s.  They are now among the last to drop these widely discredited programs.

What experimental education methods? I've haeard that CA had pretty good schools before Prop. 13 was passed in 1978.

Personal grammar (there is no proper grammar, write how you want), personal spelling (same as above, for spelling), hands off science instruction (let the kids loose in a field so they can learn biology) and a variety of other hair-brained, highly unsuccessful programs got their start in California before Prop 13 ever saw the ballot box.  Some schools still practice them.

Tredrick, I agree with you 100%.  Many hare-brained liberal ideas took over the educational establishment in the 1970s and served to dumb down education.  Liberals of course think the quality of education begins and ends with the level of money spent, and somehow what is spent is never enough for these people.

But the types of ideas that you describe have a lot to do with the decline of education.  It doesn't matter how much money you're spending, if you ignore spelling, grammar and science in favor of social indoctriation.

I remember those "science" programs well.  My 7th grade science class was in a chemistry lab, and we were supposed to do experiements, I guess, but that was never made clear, so we crumpled up paper balls and played modified golf, using the holes in the tables as our holes.  The teacher sat there and watched us.  We were "expressing our individuality" and of course, learning nothing.  This is the liberal approach to education in full bloom.  And this was an affluent school district with excellent facilities and a high per-pupil spending rate on education.

I remember at my brother's school there was a federally funded program called WEDGE - "writing every day generates excellence."  The essence of it was that nothing should impede a child's writing creativity, and by nothing, I mean things like spelling, grammar, sentence structure, etc.  My mom was outraged about the program, and cited the fact that it was federally funded, and that it was used in New York City schools, as proof that it was no good (she was right).  The district eventually had to get rid of it, but they first implemented it because it allowed them to get a federal grant.  This is the insidious nature of misguided federal involvement.

ESL is another boondoggle.  Kids are maintained and taught in a foreign language at the precise time when they could learn English most easily with a more aggressive immersion program.  In New York, the program is so bad that kids whose native language isn't even Spanish are placed in programs where they are taught in Spanish.  There's an ugly political agenda at play here, with "community activists" trying to prevent latinos from being assimilated, because they're easier to control when they're isolated, as well as the more venial and petty desire to maintain and expand the funding for these worse-than-useless programs as a pork barrel measure.

Keep preaching the truth, man.

[J. J.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wasn't arguing that it was

I think that this was the point of the tread, that only the undereducated vote for Bush, while those with higher educational attainment vote for Kerry. :-)

CA, for example, could be producing a lot of HS graduates, who end up getting jobs in MN.  Likewise MN could have a terrible educational system, but has jobs that attracts mostly out of state HS graduates.  The people left in CA are the voters for that state, just the people comming to MN are the electorate for that state.

[J. J.]

I took a look at my HS twentieth year reunion book from 2000; the class was 103 (excluding foreign exchange students and those that couldn't be located). 

25 no longer live within 50 miles of the HS. 

16 that I know of have a college degree (at least); of those 16, ten do not live in the 50 mile radius.

If we would look at the district, we could decry how "bad" the school was at the time, because it only produced a 5% in the number of college graduates in the area 20 years later.

In actuality, it probably produced about 15% (possibly up to 20%) college graduates, and probably did produce in excess of 20% that attended college.

We might be seeing something similar in CA.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Shira is correct, the educated states, measured by the 2002 data on what percentage of people 25 or older have a bachelor's degree, tended to vote for Kerry.

Perhaps some states with high HS graduation rates and low rates of bachelor's degrees did not do a good job of preparing their kids for college.

Maryland        37.6
Colorado    35.7
Virginia    34.6
Massachusetts    34.3
Connecticut    32.6
New Jersey    31.4
Vermont            30.8
Minnesota    30.5
New Hampshire    30.1
Rhode Island    30.1
Delaware    29.5
Kansas            29.1
New York    28.8
Washington    28.3
California    27.9
Illinois    27.3
Nebraska    27.1
Oregon            27.1
Hawaii            26.8
Utah            26.8
Missouri    26.7
Arizona            26.3
Texas            26.2
Pennsylvania    26.1
Florida            25.7
Alaska            25.6
New Mexico    25.4
North Dakota    25.3
Georgia            25.0
Wisconsin    24.7
Ohio            24.5
Maine            23.8
Indiana            23.7
Montana            23.6
South Dakota    23.6
South Carolina    23.3
Iowa            23.1
Alabama            22.7
Michigan    22.5
North Carolina    22.4
Louisiana    22.1
Nevada            22.1
Kentucky    21.6
Tennessee    21.5
Idaho            20.9
Mississippi    20.9
Oklahoma    20.4
Wyoming            19.6
Arkansas    18.3
West Virginia    15.9

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

CA's educational system fell apart long before that, jfern.  They were the first to adopt the experimental education methods from the 60s and early 70s.  They are now among the last to drop these widely discredited programs.

What experimental education methods? I've haeard that CA had pretty good schools before Prop. 13 was passed in 1978.

Personal grammar (there is no proper grammar, write how you want), personal spelling (same as above, for spelling), hands off science instruction (let the kids loose in a field so they can learn biology) and a variety of other hair-brained, highly unsuccessful programs got their start in California before Prop 13 ever saw the ballot box.  Some schools still practice them.

I agree, those sound dumb, although a limited number of field trips in a biology class isn't a bad idea.

[dazzleman]

Shira is correct, the educated states, measured by the 2002 data on what percentage of people 25 or older have a bachelor's degree, tended to vote for Kerry.

Perhaps some states with high HS graduation rates and low rates of bachelor's degrees did not do a good job of preparing their kids for college.

Maryland        37.6
Colorado    35.7
Virginia    34.6
Massachusetts    34.3
Connecticut    32.6
New Jersey    31.4
Vermont            30.8
Minnesota    30.5
New Hampshire    30.1
Rhode Island    30.1
Delaware    29.5
Kansas            29.1
New York    28.8
Washington    28.3
California    27.9
Illinois    27.3
Nebraska    27.1
Oregon            27.1
Hawaii            26.8
Utah            26.8
Missouri    26.7
Arizona            26.3
Texas            26.2
Pennsylvania    26.1
Florida            25.7
Alaska            25.6
New Mexico    25.4
North Dakota    25.3
Georgia            25.0
Wisconsin    24.7
Ohio            24.5
Maine            23.8
Indiana            23.7
Montana            23.6
South Dakota    23.6
South Carolina    23.3
Iowa            23.1
Alabama            22.7
Michigan    22.5
North Carolina    22.4
Louisiana    22.1
Nevada            22.1
Kentucky    21.6
Tennessee    21.5
Idaho            20.9
Mississippi    20.9
Oklahoma    20.4
Wyoming            19.6
Arkansas    18.3
West Virginia    15.9

What this doesn't tell you is which people within those so-called educated states voted for Bush, versus Kerry. 

If a state with a high percentage of college grads voted 51% for Kerry and 49% for Bush, while a state with a low percentage of college grads voted 51% for Bush and 49% for Kerry, does that mean that more educated people voted for Kerry?  You can't come to a valid conclusion through a high level state analysis like that.  Exit polls show that college graduates favored Bush, and that is probably more valid than your state-by-state analysis, which doesn't identify the educational status of the large minority of people within the state who voted for the candidate who did not carry that state.

Shira's logic is that of a sixth grader, and her statements are so stupid as to be grating.  She doesn't know s**t from apple butter as far as I'm concerned.

[J. J.]

Shira is correct, the educated states, measured by the 2002 data on what percentage of people 25 or older have a bachelor's degree, tended to vote for Kerry.

Perhaps some states with high HS graduation rates and low rates of bachelor's degrees did not do a good job of preparing their kids for college.

Assuming that ranking is correct, we don't find a strong relationship

The bolded ones are Bush states:

Maryland        37.6
Colorado    35.7
Virginia    34.6
Massachusetts    34.3
Connecticut    32.6
New Jersey    31.4
Vermont            30.8
Minnesota    30.5
New Hampshire    30.1
Rhode Island    30.1
Delaware    29.5
Kansas            29.1
New York    28.8
Washington    28.3
California    27.9
Illinois    27.3
Nebraska    27.1
Oregon            27.1
Hawaii            26.8
Utah            26.8
Missouri    26.7
Arizona            26.3
Texas            26.2
Pennsylvania    26.1
Florida            25.7
Alaska            25.6
New Mexico    25.4
North Dakota    25.3
Georgia            25.0
Wisconsin    24.7
Ohio            24.5
Maine            23.8
Indiana            23.7
Montana            23.6
South Dakota    23.6
South Carolina    23.3
Iowa            23.1
Alabama            22.7
Michigan    22.5
North Carolina    22.4
Louisiana    22.1
Nevada            22.1
Kentucky    21.6
Tennessee    21.5
Idaho            20.9
Mississippi    20.9
Oklahoma    20.4
Wyoming            19.6
Arkansas    18.3
West Virginia    15.9

You also have the situation of Bush winning more states.  Even if you go into the really close states (NH, WI, NV, AZ), there really isn't a correlation.  We should be seeing all of those grouped around the same educational level; that is not the case.

It does illustrate the Northeast, Pacific Rim breakdown reasonably well.

I would like to see a link and where DC ranks.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Shira is correct, the educated states, measured by the 2002 data on what percentage of people 25 or older have a bachelor's degree, tended to vote for Kerry.

Perhaps some states with high HS graduation rates and low rates of bachelor's degrees did not do a good job of preparing their kids for college.

Assuming that ranking is correct, we don't find a strong relationship

The bolded ones are Bush states:

Maryland        37.6
Colorado    35.7
Virginia    34.6
Massachusetts    34.3
Connecticut    32.6
New Jersey    31.4
Vermont            30.8
Minnesota    30.5
New Hampshire    30.1
Rhode Island    30.1
Delaware    29.5
Kansas            29.1
New York    28.8
Washington    28.3
California    27.9
Illinois    27.3
Nebraska    27.1
Oregon            27.1
Hawaii            26.8
Utah            26.8
Missouri    26.7
Arizona            26.3
Texas            26.2
Pennsylvania    26.1
Florida            25.7
Alaska            25.6
New Mexico    25.4
North Dakota    25.3
Georgia            25.0
Wisconsin    24.7
Ohio            24.5
Maine            23.8
Indiana            23.7
Montana            23.6
South Dakota    23.6
South Carolina    23.3
Iowa            23.1
Alabama            22.7
Michigan    22.5
North Carolina    22.4
Louisiana    22.1
Nevada            22.1
Kentucky    21.6
Tennessee    21.5
Idaho            20.9
Mississippi    20.9
Oklahoma    20.4
Wyoming            19.6
Arkansas    18.3
West Virginia    15.9

You also have the situation of Bush winning more states.  Even if you go into the really close states (NH, WI, NV, AZ), there really isn't a correlation.  We should be seeing all of those grouped around the same educational level; that is not the case.

It does illustrate the Northeast, Pacific Rim breakdown reasonably well.

I would like to see a link and where DC ranks.

It's a significant difference, even though you screwed up Michigan.

15/19 of the most educated went for Kerry.
4/31 of the least educated went for Kerry.

If it was truly random, the probability of that would be 19 choose 15 * 31 choose 4 / 50 choose 19 = 4.011 * 10^-6.

That gives us most of the one sided test probability 4.157 * 10^-6

Due to symmetry, the two sided test is then 8.314*10^-6

True, the 19 / 31 I picked was somewhat arbitrary, although it's also the number of states that went for Kerry and Bush respectively. Still we have a strong correlation between ranking (note that I never used the actual percentage) and who they voted for.

[J. J.]

It's a significant difference, even though you screwed up Michigan.

15/19 of the most educated went for Kerry.
4/31 of the least educated went for Kerry.

If it was truly random, the probability of that would be 19 choose 15 * 31 choose 4 / 50 choose 19 = 4.011 * 10^-6.

That gives us most of the one sided test probability 4.157 * 10^-6

Due to symmetry, the two sided test is then 8.314*10^-6

True, the 19 / 31 I picked was somewhat arbitrary, although it's also the number of states that went for Kerry and Bush respectively. Still we have a strong correlation between ranking (note that I never used the actual percentage) and who they voted for.

Wrong again, at it's your model that is wrong.  These are not random and we know the data.

We know that there were these four states that were relatively close, NM, NV, NH, WI.  If the premise is correct, then they should have similar educational levels.

NM has 25.4% college graduate levels, which is -10.3 points below the the highest Bush state , CO (35.7%) and +9.5 above the lowest Bush state (WV, 15.9%)

NV is at 22.1% -13.6 from high, and +6.3 from low.

NH (30.1%) is -7.6 from Kerry's high (MD 37.6, more from DC 45%+) and +8.6 from the low (MI 22.5%).

WI (24.7%) is -12.9 from Kerry's high and +2.2 of the low.

Now, comparing the states you have the highest NH (30.1) with the losest NV (22.1%) with an 8 point difference (which is actually larger than some of the difference between some of the "Kerry carried" results).  You shouldn't have this if education was a major factor.  Those four states should have had similar education levels.

[The Vorlon]

A few actual facts about education versus voting patterns...

Nation wide statistics...

Education

No High school diploma => Kerry 50 / Bush 49

High school graduate => Bush 52 - Kerry 47

Some College => Bush 54 / Kerry 46

College Graduate => Bush 52 / Kerry 46

Post Graduate Degree => Kerry 55 / Bush 44

Hmmmm... HS grads and college graduates had exactly the same voting pattern....

Makes me think the link between education and voting patterns may not be that strong....

Vote By Income:

Under $15,000 Bush 36% Kerry  63%
 
$15-30,000 Bush 42% Kerry 57%
 
$30-50,000 Bush  49% Kerry 50%  
 
$50-75,000 Bush 56%  Kerry 43%  
 
$75-100,000 Bush  55%  Kerry 45%
 
$100-150,000 Bush  57% Kerry 42%  
 
$150-200,000 Bush  58% Kerry 42%  
 
$200,000 or More 63% Kerry 35% 


The big "wedge" that drives voting patterns is NOT education, or for that matter even income...

Vote By Race:

Whites - Bush 58 / Kerry 41
Blacks - Kerry 88 / Bush 11
Latino - Kerry 53 / Bush 44

Evangelical Christians

Bush  78 / Kerry 21

Married with Kids

Bush 59 / Kerry 40

Gun Owners

Bush 63 / Kerry 36

Strongly approve of Iraq war

Bush 94 / Kerry 6

Strongly Disapprove of Iraq war

Kerry 94 / Bush 5

Abortion should be always legal...

Kerry 73 / Bush 25

Abortion should always be illegal

Bush 77 / Kerry 22

Go to church at least weekly..

Bush 61 / Kerry 39

Never Go to church..

Kerry 62 / Bush 36

There is the traditional rich = GOP, poor = Dem pattern, at least a bit, but it is dwarfed in magnitude by social issues likes Guns, Abortion, church attendance, and race..

[The Vorlon]

Vorlon- it is SO good  to see you back posting again!

Thanks!

PS... "I have always been here "

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It's a significant difference, even though you screwed up Michigan.

15/19 of the most educated went for Kerry.
4/31 of the least educated went for Kerry.

If it was truly random, the probability of that would be 19 choose 15 * 31 choose 4 / 50 choose 19 = 4.011 * 10^-6.

That gives us most of the one sided test probability 4.157 * 10^-6

Due to symmetry, the two sided test is then 8.314*10^-6

True, the 19 / 31 I picked was somewhat arbitrary, although it's also the number of states that went for Kerry and Bush respectively. Still we have a strong correlation between ranking (note that I never used the actual percentage) and who they voted for.

Wrong again, at it's your model that is wrong.  These are not random and we know the data.

We know that there were these four states that were relatively close, NM, NV, NH, WI.  If the premise is correct, then they should have similar educational levels.

NM has 25.4% college graduate levels, which is -10.3 points below the the highest Bush state , CO (35.7%) and +9.5 above the lowest Bush state (WV, 15.9%)

NV is at 22.1% -13.6 from high, and +6.3 from low.

NH (30.1%) is -7.6 from Kerry's high (MD 37.6, more from DC 45%+) and +8.6 from the low (MI 22.5%).

WI (24.7%) is -12.9 from Kerry's high and +2.2 of the low.

Now, comparing the states you have the highest NH (30.1) with the losest NV (22.1%) with an 8 point difference (which is actually larger than some of the difference between some of the "Kerry carried" results).  You shouldn't have this if education was a major factor.  Those four states should have had similar education levels.

I said assuming they were random. Oh, well, you'll say I'm wrong on statistics just out of principle.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Shira is correct, the educated states, measured by the 2002 data on what percentage of people 25 or older have a bachelor's degree, tended to vote for Kerry.

Perhaps some states with high HS graduation rates and low rates of bachelor's degrees did not do a good job of preparing their kids for college.

Maryland        37.6
Colorado    35.7
Virginia    34.6
Massachusetts    34.3
Connecticut    32.6
New Jersey    31.4
Vermont            30.8
Minnesota    30.5
New Hampshire    30.1
Rhode Island    30.1
Delaware    29.5
Kansas            29.1
New York    28.8
Washington    28.3
California    27.9
Illinois    27.3
Nebraska    27.1
Oregon            27.1
Hawaii            26.8
Utah            26.8
Missouri    26.7
Arizona            26.3
Texas            26.2
Pennsylvania    26.1
Florida            25.7
Alaska            25.6
New Mexico    25.4
North Dakota    25.3
Georgia            25.0
Wisconsin    24.7
Ohio            24.5
Maine            23.8
Indiana            23.7
Montana            23.6
South Dakota    23.6
South Carolina    23.3
Iowa            23.1
Alabama            22.7
Michigan    22.5
North Carolina    22.4
Louisiana    22.1
Nevada            22.1
Kentucky    21.6
Tennessee    21.5
Idaho            20.9
Mississippi    20.9
Oklahoma    20.4
Wyoming            19.6
Arkansas    18.3
West Virginia    15.9

What this doesn't tell you is which people within those so-called educated states voted for Bush, versus Kerry. 

If a state with a high percentage of college grads voted 51% for Kerry and 49% for Bush, while a state with a low percentage of college grads voted 51% for Bush and 49% for Kerry, does that mean that more educated people voted for Kerry?  You can't come to a valid conclusion through a high level state analysis like that.  Exit polls show that college graduates favored Bush, and that is probably more valid than your state-by-state analysis, which doesn't identify the educational status of the large minority of people within the state who voted for the candidate who did not carry that state.

Shira's logic is that of a sixth grader, and her statements are so stupid as to be grating.  She doesn't know s**t from apple butter as far as I'm concerned.

Well, obviously statistics can be mis-interprented. Here's a good example of where it's easy to screw up: AL was better for Bush than MS, MS whites were more pro-Bush, and so were MS blacks. It's only because MS has more blacks that AL was better for Bush.

That aside, here's the exit polls on education:

National
Catagory 1: No HS (4%) Kerry wins 50-49
Catagory 2: HS diploma only (22%) Bush wins 52-47
Catagory 3: Some college, but no bachelors (32%) Bush wins 54-46%
Catagory 4: Bachelors but no post-graduate study (26%) Bush wins 52-46
Catagory 5: Post-graduate study (16%) Kerry wins 55%-44%

Compared to average Kerry runs stronger among #1 (4 points better) and #5 (14 points better). Bush runs better amoung #2 (2 points better), #3 (5 points better), and #4 (3 points better).

The 42% with a bachelors degere in #4 and #5 has a tie, (3 points better for Kerry than average)

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

We can look at regions.

East
#1: 4%, Kerry landslides 74-26
#2: 19% Kerry wins 54-45
#3: 29% Kerry wins 51-48
#4: 26% Kerry wins 56-42
#5: 22% Solid Kerry win 62-37

#1+#2+#3: 52%, Kerry wins 54-45
#4+#5: 48% Kerry wins 59-40

Mid-west
#1: 4%, Kerry wins 52-48
#2: 26%, Kerry wins 51-48
#3: 33%, Bush wins 50-49
#4: 22%, Bush wins 55-44
#5: 15% Bush wins 50-48

#1+#2+#3: 63%, Kerry wins 50-49
#4+#5,: 37%, Bush 53-46

South:
#1: 5%, Bush wins 60-39
#2: 23%, Bush wins 56-43
#3: 31%, Bush wins 60-40
#4: 27%, Bush wins 61-38
#5: 14%, Bush wins 54-46

#1+#2+#3: 59%, Bush wins 58-41
#4+#5: 41%, Bush wins 58-41

West:
#1: 4%, Bush wins 52-45
#2: 17%, Bush wins 58-42
#3: 35%, Bush wins 54-45
#4: 28%, Kerry wins 50-47
#5: 17%,  Kerry wins 63-35

#1+#2+#3: 56%, Bush wins 55-44
#4+#5, 44%, Kerry wins 55-43

This does not take into account the quality of education.

The east is #1 in education and #1 in pro-Kerry. It has a moderately strong postive correlation between Kerry and education

The west is #2 in education and #2 in pro-Kerry. It has a very strong postive correlation between Kerry and education

The mid-west is #3 in education and #3 in pro-Kerry. It has a moderately strong negative correlation between Kerry and education

The south is #4 in education and #4 in pro-Kerry. It has basically no correlation between Kerry and education.

[J. J.]

I said assuming they were random. Oh, well, you'll say I'm wrong on statistics just out of principle.

No, what I am saying is that your modeling is wrong.  The problem you have, in all seriousness, is that you usually end up testing for something other than what you you are looking for.  I'm saying that most you statistical arguments have design flaws, not math flaws.

[J. J.]

It is always good to see you post Vorlon.  :-)

[The Vorlon]

It is always good to see you post Vorlon.  :-)

Thanks, and back at ya!

[jimrtex]

Perhaps some states with high HS graduation rates and low rates of bachelor's degrees did not do a good job of preparing their kids for college.

Percentage of adults with college degrees is strongly concentrated in larger (sub)urban areas, with some secondary concentrations in resort areas as shown in the following report:

See Map on Page 8

College education often takes students out of the area where they graduate and their parents live.  After college, graduates may not return to their home community, moving to a larger city where there are jobs that require degrees.   The city may be in a different state.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Spillover from people working in the government.  People moving from other states.   Colorado has the highest percentage of people in the 20-65 YO range (fewer children and retirees).  They thus avoid old people pulling down the college attainment percentage.  Note high levels of college degrees in mountain resort areas.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

New England attracts students to colleges who stay on.    People with degrees move to New Hampshire to get lower taxes, cheaper housing.  People move to Vermont to make ice cream, or "I scream". 

Minnesota is due to concentration in Twin Cities.   The rest of the state doesn't look much different than the Dakotas.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Upper midwest saw its growth ended around 1970s.  College graduates may have gone elsewhere, just at time graduation rates reached its current plateau (highest percentage of graduates is among those 50-54 in 2000 - earliest baby boomers).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Though relatively low, has had high rate of growth due to people moving to piedmont cities (Raleigh-Charlotte).  Georgia has seen similar growth in the Atlanta area.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Top county is location of Sun Valley (Kerry's ski lodge is there).  Does this show that Idaho does a good job of preparing HS students to become ski bums?

[J. J.]

I have tried to resist posting this, but I can't any longer.

The person sho started this thread, Shira, posted during the election about the "Million new voters" in FL, and that these were implicitly Kerry voters.  Turnout went up but those "million new voters" didn't exist.

Math is not Shira's strong suit.

Ironically, I suggested Kerry should write off FL and but resources into OH and WV.  It might have been better Kerry strategy.

[muon2]

Social issues are much more strongly correlated with voting patterns than education, as the Vorlon suggests. Even within an educational group, social issues detremine voting behavior.

There is no doubt IMO that the majority of my research and academic colleagues voted Democrat last year. This is a group of PhD physicists, so they would meet most any test for having the most years of education. My discussions with them tells me that their votes were almostly always apart from their own economic interests. They were voting on either the war/peace issue or on other social issues (gun control, pro-choice, etc.) Most surprisingly, support for science was not generally a factor.