“Neither of the NPR employees voted for Bush”

[Shira]

That’s the claim that I have heard recently and it well could be the case.
However, by no means it is reflected in the NPR news or commentaries.
But the point that I want to bring  is that in all-voting analysis there are all kinds of breakdowns: by state, by age, by race, by income, by faith, by gender and some other breakdowns. What I have not seen is a breakdown by profession/occupation (correct me if I am wrong). My personal impression  (not a scientific poll) based on people that I meet, is that university professors, high school teachers, journalists and to lesser extend elementary school teachers are liberals. This brings me to the conclusion that the more a person is educated, well informed and knows what’s going in other countries; it is more likely that this person did not vote for Bush. The clear example that I have mentioned already, is that the majority of Bush’s voters sincerely  believe that Saddam is responsible for 9/11

[dazzleman]

Your reasoning skills are pretty deficient.

Teachers are not the most intelligent or educated people in our society.  Nothing against them, but to base your view of what intelligent and educated people think on the opinion of teachers, and journalists for that matter, is not too smart.

The most educated person is not necessarily correct on the issues in any case.  Education can't grant common sense, or moral courage.

The reality is that there are both stupid and intelligent people who voted for Bush, and Kerry.  You keep making these ridiculous statements, with the reasoning ability of a 6th grader.  How old are you?

[minionofmidas]

A breakdown by income shows a much much larger class divide than a breakdown by educational attainment.
Guess what that means. I won't.

[Schmitz in 1972]

A breakdown by income shows a much much larger class divide than a breakdown by educational attainment.
Guess what that means. I won't.

Michael Barone argues in his introduction to the 2002 Almanac of American Politics that the real division stems from religion (I think Opebo would probably concur!)

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

How many times do we have to go through this.....

Bush won those with an undergrad degree by several points, while Kerry won those with a high school education by a point.   Kerry did win those with post graduate degrees - but enough of those would be lawyers to tip that balance.

That having been said, I don't believe that individuals with college degrees are smarter than those of us who don't have them.  Its just that the above argument makes a whole lot more sense than yours.

Those who can, do.
Those who can't, teach.

[ATFFL]

Those who can, do.
Those who can't, teach.

And those who have no concept of reality, insult teachers.

[Shira]

My point was the non-existing breakdown by profession/occupation. My impression is that people who work in the education and journalism systems are far more liberal than the rest of the population

[Storebought]

Those who can, do.
Those who can't, teach.

And those that can't teach, teach teachers!

I thought it was, "Those who can't teach, teach math...those who can't teach math teach physics"

[phk]

It at least plays out well in California.

The only educational group Bush won here was those with 'No High School'. Which basically is 'right-wing' PC for High School dropout. Don't look further than Tulare, Fresno, Kern, Madera counties for these types of people. You'll no doubt see these folks claiming they don't know how to read or write, yet harp in everybody's face about the glory of religion.

This is typical behavior there. Of course they'll probably claim that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, that Satan planted dinsaur fossils to trick humanity, that the US has to secure the Middle East for the second-coming of Jesus Christ, etc.

Kerry won the rest of the groups, with a mega-lead in post-graduate degrees.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

How many times do we have to go through this.....

Bush won those with an undergrad degree by several points, while Kerry won those with a high school education by a point.   Kerry did win those with post graduate degrees - but enough of those would be lawyers to tip that balance.

That having been said, I don't believe that individuals with college degrees are smarter than those of us who don't have them.  Its just that the above argument makes a whole lot more sense than yours.

Those who can, do.
Those who can't, teach.

Most people with graduate degrees are not lawyers.

[J. J.]

How many times do we have to go through this.....

Bush won those with an undergrad degree by several points, while Kerry won those with a high school education by a point.   Kerry did win those with post graduate degrees - but enough of those would be lawyers to tip that balance.

That having been said, I don't believe that individuals with college degrees are smarter than those of us who don't have them.  Its just that the above argument makes a whole lot more sense than yours.

Those who can, do.
Those who can't, teach.

Most people with graduate degrees are not lawyers.

He didn't say that they were; he said that there were enough to tip the balance.

If you look at the states with the highest percentage of people with a high school diploma, you'll find that Kerry won 2 out of the top 10; if you look at states with the lowest percentage of with a high school diploma, you'll find that Kerry won 2 out of the bottom 10.

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

[Shira]

How many times do we have to go through this.....

Bush won those with an undergrad degree by several points, while Kerry won those with a high school education by a point.   Kerry did win those with post graduate degrees - but enough of those would be lawyers to tip that balance.

That having been said, I don't believe that individuals with college degrees are smarter than those of us who don't have them.  Its just that the above argument makes a whole lot more sense than yours.

Those who can, do.
Those who can't, teach.

Most people with graduate degrees are not lawyers.

He didn't say that they were; he said that there were enough to tip the balance.

If you look at the states with the highest percentage of people with a high school diploma, you'll find that Kerry won 2 out of the top 10; if you look at states with the lowest percentage of with a high school diploma, you'll find that Kerry won 2 out of the bottom 10.

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

Are you aware of the fact that in MA, CT, RI, NY, WA and MD people are better educated than those in AL, MS, TX, SC, UT, and AND OK?

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Dude, I have nothing against elementary and high school teachers who are overwhelmingly underpaid and underappreciated.  I was referring to the college professors which gain the awe and respect of our liberal friends.

Those who can, do.
Those who can't, teach.

And those who have no concept of reality, insult teachers.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

MA, CT, RI, NY, WA and MD have far higher per capita incomes than AL, MS, TX, SC, UT, and OK.   This affords better access to educational opportunities for those of you in the elitist states than for those of us in real America.

How many times do we have to go through this.....

Bush won those with an undergrad degree by several points, while Kerry won those with a high school education by a point.   Kerry did win those with post graduate degrees - but enough of those would be lawyers to tip that balance.

That having been said, I don't believe that individuals with college degrees are smarter than those of us who don't have them.  Its just that the above argument makes a whole lot more sense than yours.

Those who can, do.
Those who can't, teach.

Most people with graduate degrees are not lawyers.

He didn't say that they were; he said that there were enough to tip the balance.

If you look at the states with the highest percentage of people with a high school diploma, you'll find that Kerry won 2 out of the top 10; if you look at states with the lowest percentage of with a high school diploma, you'll find that Kerry won 2 out of the bottom 10.

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

Are you aware of the fact that in MA, CT, RI, NY, WA and MD people are better educated than those in AL, MS, TX, SC, UT, and AND OK?

[J. J.]

How many times do we have to go through this.....

Bush won those with an undergrad degree by several points, while Kerry won those with a high school education by a point.   Kerry did win those with post graduate degrees - but enough of those would be lawyers to tip that balance.

That having been said, I don't believe that individuals with college degrees are smarter than those of us who don't have them.  Its just that the above argument makes a whole lot more sense than yours.

Those who can, do.
Those who can't, teach.

Most people with graduate degrees are not lawyers.

He didn't say that they were; he said that there were enough to tip the balance.

If you look at the states with the highest percentage of people with a high school diploma, you'll find that Kerry won 2 out of the top 10; if you look at states with the lowest percentage of with a high school diploma, you'll find that Kerry won 2 out of the bottom 10.

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

Are you aware of the fact that in MA, CT, RI, NY, WA and MD people are better educated than those in AL, MS, TX, SC, UT, and AND OK?

Are you aware of the fact that both RI and CA are in the bottom ten states in terms of percentage of the population that graduated from high school?  Are you aware of the fact that WY, NB, AK, MT, ND, IA, and UT are in the top ten?

[Jake]

Don't bring your little facts into this arguement. Broad accusations and unsupported BS are more relevent.

[ATFFL]

Dude, I have nothing against elementary and high school teachers who are overwhelmingly underpaid and underappreciated.  I was referring to the college professors which gain the awe and respect of our liberal friends.

Those who can, do.
Those who can't, teach.

And those who have no concept of reality, insult teachers.

I've found it caries widely based on the field.  Your eduction professors almost all have 5-10 years teaching in their field before moving on.  Research fields almost always have profs who are there to do research and teach only because it is required.

English profs are there because they cannot write the Great American Novel.  Business profs tend to either be complete real world failures or people who made their money and are now giving back.

[J. J.]

Did you ever notice how few American novels have been written by English professors?

[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

Are you aware of the fact that in MA, CT, RI, NY, WA and MD people are better educated than those in AL, MS, TX, SC, UT, and AND OK?

Are you aware of the fact that you just responded to a post that included a link to a census report that showed that RI has the 7th lowest percentage of HS graduates (right between Arkansas and Tennessee -- Providence must be like Memphis without Elvis).   It also showed that Utah is 9th highest. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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

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

You can thank Prop 13, which was passed by anti-tax zealots, for that. Also, CA has a lot of immigrants.

Another this, is a HS diploma equivalent from state to staet? I have the feeling a NY HS diploma is more meaningful than an AL one.

[ATFFL]

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

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

You can thank Prop 13, which was passed by anti-tax zealots, for that. Also, CA has a lot of immigrants.

Another this, is a HS diploma equivalent from state to staet? I have the feeling a NY HS diploma is more meaningful than an AL one.

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.

[J. J.]

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

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

You can thank Prop 13, which was passed by anti-tax zealots, for that. Also, CA has a lot of immigrants.

Another this, is a HS diploma equivalent from state to staet? I have the feeling a NY HS diploma is more meaningful than an AL one.

Well, we might expect some of those states, especially in the South, to have low numbers; there is perhaps less of a tradition of educational achievement there.  However, RI is not a Southern state and NH, another New England state, is on the top of the list.  We also have some western states and farm belt IA at the top.

I'm not correlation between lower education levels and states Bush (nor Kerry, BTW) carried.  The entire argument basically looks like a load of crap.

Further, yes CA has a lot of immigrants, but so does TX, NY and FL.  Non English speaking immigrants.  I would notexpect someone whose first language is not English to graduate from an American high school at the same rate as a native English speaker.

I am not seeing any great relationship between educational level and who carried what.

If we would take this on a micro level, Philadelphia has lower HS graduate levels thand the bordering counties (Montgomery, Bucks, Delaware) and has substantially lower college and post graduate levels.  Kerry won those counties by substantially lower levels than he won Philadelphia.  I would not reach the conclusion (that Shira did that with Bush voters) that Kerry voters in PA were  ignorant or uneducated.

[minionofmidas]

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.

[J. J.]

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.

There are cultural values involved (and there are in the South* as well).  Looking at the states with a high level of high school graduates and a low level of high school graduates, there isn't too much of a difference between Bush and Kerry.

*I'm going to note something.  The bulk of the African American population in Philadelphia is first through third genernation Southern; they migrated to Phila between 1920-1970.  This was primarily a rural, agricultural society at the time (it isn't anymore).  There be a strong relationship between rural culture and lower high school graduation rates.

Now, you couldn't make this argument about RI.  :-)

[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.

Farm and ranch states may have high levels of graduates because they achieved somewhat universal graduation sooner.  The school is the focal point of the community in most small towns and rural areas.   With a smaller population, there is less opportunity to form an age-segregated group.  To become part of the community you must graduate from HS.  If these areas achieved a 90% graduation rate 10 years earlier than the country as whole then nearly everyone under 65 has graduated from HS.  And even those somewhat older would have experienced a higher graduate rate than similarly-aged persons from other areas, so that despite their relatively-aged population (due to people moving out) they have high overall graduation rates.  There may also be a factor of those who don't graduate being differentially likely to move elsewhere.

States with a high level of immigration, especially Hispanic will have low levels of graduates.  Only 44% on non-native Hispanics have graduated from HS.  This is part of the explanation for low levels of graduates in California and Texas.