Opinion of educated Republicans?

[Continential]

They know better but are still Republicans, which is even worse. Being a Republican is immoral. Being a right winger or conservative is not immoral, but identifying as a member of that political party specifically in 2023 is extremely morally dubious, at this point.

Even worse, would be those who are "educated" and who voted for trump in 2016 and/or 2020 (and yes, I even mean those who voted for him in the general).
And God forbid we have any "educated" who would vote for him in 2024.

45% of “educated Republicans” voted for Trump in 2020 and presumably 40% would vote for him again.

45% of “educated Republicans [voters]” voted for Trump in 2020 and presumably 40% would vote for him again.

Would what you actually typed have been so. 

I wonder what percentage of "educated" Pubs ceased to be Pub when the party went hard to the protectionist populist isolationist culture warrior side of the ledger. Let's call it the Torie phenomenon, to pick a voter at random.

Fixed, thank you Torie.

The NYT has a repository of past exit polls from 1972-2008.

[Badger]

They're usually even bigger sickos than non-college Republicans. Blood-suckers who hate the poor with a passion.

I think you’re the one with hate in your heart, Ferguson97.

I only hate those who espouse or enforce evil - bigotry, classism, nationalism, climate denial, etc.

I think you're the one who wants to treat rich people and poor people differently, rather than the same. And don't you support affirmative action? (Also, I don't know what is meant by 'climate denial' here, but scientific understanding of how climate changes happen change all the time: in the 2020s our understanding of the effects of aerosol emissions has shifted radically.)

More generally, if you think sincerely roughly half the people in your country are 'sickos', my guess is that you have a generalized hatred of humanity, though I think in actuality you're someone who often defaults to repeating cliches rather than putting thought into what you're saying.

I wonder when exhibit a of this phenomenon would jump in to the debate

[Badger]

in the 2020s our understanding of the effects of aerosol emissions has shifted radically

With COVID-19 lockdowns and increased demand for remote working reducing the number of people in physical offices mingling with others, putting on deodorant and perfume got knocked out of many people's morning rituals. What's the point in smelling fancy if nobody else, not even Joe Biden, can smell you?

No, this has to do with emissions from container ships. To quote the relevant bit of the abstract:

Here we show that even when no ship tracks are visible in satellite images, aerosol emissions change cloud properties substantially. We develop a new method to quantify the effect of shipping on all clouds, showing a cloud droplet number increase and a more positive liquid water response when there are no visible tracks. We directly detect shipping-induced cloud property changes in the trade cumulus regions of the Atlantic, which are known to display almost no visible tracks. Our results indicate that previous studies of ship tracks were suffering from selection biases by focusing only on visible tracks from satellite imagery. The strong liquid water path response we find translates to a larger aerosol cooling effect on the climate, potentially masking a higher climate sensitivity than observed temperature trends would otherwise suggest.

Sulfate emissions from shipping are hypothesized here to have a net cooling effect on Earth's climate, not noticed earlier because of problems with measuring how aerosols interact with cloud cover, which combined with the observed warming both suggests greater sensitivity to greenhouse gas emissions but also greater 'sensitivity' to any kind of emission generally, and further suggests (...an opinion I've had for a number of years) that shifting the climate in any particular direction would probably be easier for a motivated actor -- here thinking of rogue states or infrastructure decabillionaires -- than we think. For this reason a great deal of climate policy is probably a silly venture, because in a few decades it will be possible for virtually any government, many NGOs, and many private companies to radically alter Earth's climate if they feel like it. (That said, replacing nonrenewables with renewables is definitely good. But people worrying about their personal carbon footprint are demonstrating a poor understanding of the numbers and science involved.)

Small world. My version of capitalism, as an actual small businessman who does very well thank you, is one that has a robust social safety net, Universal Health Care, acknowledgment of institutional racism and classisms impact on society and economic well-being - something you have repeatedly demonstrated to be completely ignorant of - and an understanding that strong middle class supported by such things as rapidly increasing wages for the working class and unionism, will help me and indeed the entire economy at Large in the medium run let alone the long run.

Your version of capitalism seems to be basically harvesting the poor and homeless for organ donations and Soylent green, a rather proudly amoral "I got mine so eff you" outlook, and masturbating over Atlas Shrugged.

I'll take my version any day of the week, and probably call myself a better capitalist than you.

[Badger]

They're usually even bigger sickos than non-college Republicans. Blood-suckers who hate the poor with a passion.

Educated staunch Republicans like Yankees general manager Brian Cashman, who yearly sleeps outside the cold winter months to spread awareness about homelessness is a blood sucker?

RARE, and commendable, exception to the rule.

[Person Man]

At least they are voting their interests, right? More important than you think.

[Badger]

@Vosem (deleting wall of text)

Before you start going on too much about everyone's favorite model minorities of Asians, you better understand that that is EXTREMELY depending on which Asian American subset you are talking about. Some groups like Japanese Americans who've been here for in cases over a century and a half, and many of immigrated as engineer or other professional positions, non-shockingly enough do rather well. And yes there are many examples of Vietnamese who have done well, but they had a very strong social safety net within the community that helped finance purchases of small businesses, etc. Not to mention substantial support from the US government helping them to relocate and get established.

But then you have other subsets such as cambodians and Hmong who have every bit as much the problem of ghettoization, poverty, gang affiliation among youth, Etc as African Americans or Native Americans. Hell, even in New York City the long established Chinese community has among the highest unemployment rate of any ethnic group in the city. And no, just because some of them are paid off under the table in Chinatown doesn't make any different from Hispanics and indeed many white ethnics immigrants like the Russians and the polish who are similarly so paid.

Again, please go right ahead patting yourself on the back for being so smart to figure out that racism's effect on the economy is a combination of negligible and ancient history, and is really just used by progressives to Gin up minority votes. Lord knows blacks and other minorities can't figure out on their own that they're being screwed by the economy over racism.

[Badger]

This thread drives home the point that republicans don’t understand the difference between punching up and punching down

[Spectator]

What are we citing for the “47% of college educated voters voted for Trump”? That doesn’t add up.

Fox News had Biden winning college educated voters 57-41, and CNN had him winning them 55-43. I think it’s generally agreed upon that Biden won college-educated white voters, and when you factor that in, there’s no way Trump got anywhere close to 47% among the wider college degree pool.

This is a weird poll. Why judge people with a giant brush? I will say there are definitely some more fringe weirdos among the college educated Republican cohort that tend to be very vocal and edgy. Blake Masters comes to mind. I don’t think they do the GOP any favors.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Interestingly, college educated evangelicals are no less Republican than non-college educated evangelicals.  Though, there are definitely differences in primary voting habits between the two (I'd actually argue that the college educated group is more ideological).

[oldtimer]

My opinion of educated Republicans is entirely based on if they read ( I should say subscribe to ) the National Review, because I always detest it.

[jojoju1998]

@Vosem (deleting wall of text)

Before you start going on too much about everyone's favorite model minorities of Asians, you better understand that that is EXTREMELY depending on which Asian American subset you are talking about. Some groups like Japanese Americans who've been here for in cases over a century and a half, and many of immigrated as engineer or other professional positions, non-shockingly enough do rather well. And yes there are many examples of Vietnamese who have done well, but they had a very strong social safety net within the community that helped finance purchases of small businesses, etc. Not to mention substantial support from the US government helping them to relocate and get established.

But then you have other subsets such as cambodians and Hmong who have every bit as much the problem of ghettoization, poverty, gang affiliation among youth, Etc as African Americans or Native Americans. Hell, even in New York City the long established Chinese community has among the highest unemployment rate of any ethnic group in the city. And no, just because some of them are paid off under the table in Chinatown doesn't make any different from Hispanics and indeed many white ethnics immigrants like the Russians and the polish who are similarly so paid.

Again, please go right ahead patting yourself on the back for being so smart to figure out that racism's effect on the economy is a combination of negligible and ancient history, and is really just used by progressives to Gin up minority votes. Lord knows blacks and other minorities can't figure out on their own that they're being screwed by the economy over racism.

As a Asian Vietnamese American, I will stay silent on this. I have a lot of opinions on this, but for the sake of this thread....

[jojoju1998]

in the 2020s our understanding of the effects of aerosol emissions has shifted radically

With COVID-19 lockdowns and increased demand for remote working reducing the number of people in physical offices mingling with others, putting on deodorant and perfume got knocked out of many people's morning rituals. What's the point in smelling fancy if nobody else, not even Joe Biden, can smell you?

No, this has to do with emissions from container ships. To quote the relevant bit of the abstract:

Here we show that even when no ship tracks are visible in satellite images, aerosol emissions change cloud properties substantially. We develop a new method to quantify the effect of shipping on all clouds, showing a cloud droplet number increase and a more positive liquid water response when there are no visible tracks. We directly detect shipping-induced cloud property changes in the trade cumulus regions of the Atlantic, which are known to display almost no visible tracks. Our results indicate that previous studies of ship tracks were suffering from selection biases by focusing only on visible tracks from satellite imagery. The strong liquid water path response we find translates to a larger aerosol cooling effect on the climate, potentially masking a higher climate sensitivity than observed temperature trends would otherwise suggest.

Sulfate emissions from shipping are hypothesized here to have a net cooling effect on Earth's climate, not noticed earlier because of problems with measuring how aerosols interact with cloud cover, which combined with the observed warming both suggests greater sensitivity to greenhouse gas emissions but also greater 'sensitivity' to any kind of emission generally, and further suggests (...an opinion I've had for a number of years) that shifting the climate in any particular direction would probably be easier for a motivated actor -- here thinking of rogue states or infrastructure decabillionaires -- than we think. For this reason a great deal of climate policy is probably a silly venture, because in a few decades it will be possible for virtually any government, many NGOs, and many private companies to radically alter Earth's climate if they feel like it. (That said, replacing nonrenewables with renewables is definitely good. But people worrying about their personal carbon footprint are demonstrating a poor understanding of the numbers and science involved.)

Small world. My version of capitalism, as an actual small businessman who does very well thank you, is one that has a robust social safety net, Universal Health Care, acknowledgment of institutional racism and classisms impact on society and economic well-being - something you have repeatedly demonstrated to be completely ignorant of - and an understanding that strong middle class supported by such things as rapidly increasing wages for the working class and unionism, will help me and indeed the entire economy at Large in the medium run let alone the long run.

Your version of capitalism seems to be basically harvesting the poor and homeless for organ donations and Soylent green, a rather proudly amoral "I got mine so eff you" outlook, and masturbating over Atlas Shrugged.

I'll take my version any day of the week, and probably call myself a better capitalist than you.

Oh by the way, according to very conservative heritage foundation, the top ten countries they rank as having the most economic freedom, all have free healthcare, free higher education, hmm...

[jojoju1998]

How do these people have different needs? (To quote a cliche/let someone else do my thinking for me, "If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh?")

.... You are seriously asking how rich and poor people have different needs?

Rich people never worry about being able to afford rent. Rich people never need to worry about what will happen if they lose their job. Rich people never need to worry about an unexpected medical bill. Rich people never need to worry about whether or not their kid will be able to have a future. Rich people never need to worry about their retirement.

(Rich people obviously do still need to worry about their kids having a future; heredity isn't that strong.)

This doesn't answer my question. You're mostly listing priorities that the rich and poor have in common, like housing and healthcare. Why should we be treating them differently, and trying to hurt one to help the other? (Even ignoring that history shows that this doesn't work, or that these are literally the same people at different points in their lives.) You can say that poor people deserve it more than rich people, but at that point it's hard to say you aren't being the 'classist' one -- which you decried.

How is giving someone extra shots a level playing field? Your problem here seems to be that level playing fields do not result in draws. (And indeed, 'race and gender' correlate strongly with/provide advantages: in virtually any sport -- I believe with the curious exception of archery -- men perform much stronger than women. Professional athletes in a variety of US sports are disproportionately African-American, and for richly deserved reasons. And, were we to have a level playing field, the top universities at the US would have overwhelmingly Asian-American student bodies, and most or all prestigious white-collar professions would be staffed by many more Asian-Americans than they are now.)

If you believe in the principles of meritocracy and that the races are inherently equal, then you must recognize that racial achievement gaps can only be explained by systemic discrimination and bias in the hiring/admissions process. Affirmative action seeks to close those gaps.

I don't think it is remotely true that achievement gaps can only be explained by systemic discrimination. (Frankly, I think this explanation is a totally absurd and non-serious one which can safely be laughed out of the room, and which was invented to keep certain ethnicities, like Asian-Americans, down. Suggesting a secret phenomenon that no one can see, but that everybody in society should be fighting, is similar to alleging witchcraft, and broadly it is a quite normal phenomenon that minorities that society discriminates against are wealthier and have more educational success -- consider Jews in Weimar Germany, or Armenians in pre-WW1 Turkey, or Indians in colonial central Africa, or for that matter Asian-Americans today.) College admissions boards and human resources directors are strongly incentivized to promote underrepresented minorities, who (because they get a boost and are held to a lower standard) virtually always have lower test scores in American universities and professional schools. The lower test scores precede contact with admissions/hiring, and need explanation.

I think there is substantial evidence that cultural factors play a large role (as you can sometimes see in individuals converting religions, or otherwise wholly remaking their lives, and even sometimes in entire communities) for many people. Vox notes the existence of a gap in learning capability -- in their conclusion the authors sort of suggest that studying why such a difference exists is inappropriate because it could be used to strengthen prejudices, but in general we can say that the scientific consensus in psychology since the 1990s has been that personality traits are caused by a mixture of heredity and non-shared environment.

In any case, even if achievement gaps were wholly caused by injustice (though this is really, really not the case), wouldn't it still make more sense to let the highest-achieving people become surgeons and lawyers and financiers and whatever, instead of people who would do worse jobs and are qualified only because of suffering? Don't poor people also benefit if society hires the best surgeons (and stock-pickers and office managers and whatever), and suffer if people are less good at their jobs?

What's wrong with judging someone by the content of their character?

Oh, nothing. The issue here is that I suspect there are traits (like a sincere love for capitalism, the only thing keeping us all fed and warm) that I view strongly positively and you view at least somewhat negatively, such that we could see the same person, judge them by the true content of their character, and reach different conclusions. See, I like these characters.

Well no duh, it turns out that people with fundamentally incompatible worldviews tend to view people differently. Who could have thought?

You asked the question!

American standardized tests are very subpar. They're not the same as the Swiss Matura, or the UK GSCE.

[Ferguson97]

Interestingly, college educated evangelicals are no less Republican than non-college educated evangelicals.  Though, there are definitely differences in primary voting habits between the two (I'd actually argue that the college educated group is more ideological).

How many Evangelical Democrats are there, period?

[All Along The Watchtower]

Why should my opinion of someone, let alone their political views, depend on whether they have a degree, or several degrees?

Strange thread.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Interestingly, college educated evangelicals are no less Republican than non-college educated evangelicals.  Though, there are definitely differences in primary voting habits between the two (I'd actually argue that the college educated group is more ideological).

How many Evangelical Democrats are there, period?

Plenty.

[jojoju1998]

Interestingly, college educated evangelicals are no less Republican than non-college educated evangelicals.  Though, there are definitely differences in primary voting habits between the two (I'd actually argue that the college educated group is more ideological).

How many Evangelical Democrats are there, period?

There's actually more than you think.

[Fuzzy Bear]

They're usually even bigger sickos than non-college Republicans. Blood-suckers who hate the poor with a passion.

I think you’re the one with hate in your heart, Ferguson97.

I only hate those who espouse or enforce evil - bigotry, classism, nationalism, climate denial, etc.

I think you're the one who wants to treat rich people and poor people differently, rather than the same. And don't you support affirmative action? (Also, I don't know what is meant by 'climate denial' here, but scientific understanding of how climate changes happen change all the time: in the 2020s our understanding of the effects of aerosol emissions has shifted radically.)

More generally, if you think sincerely roughly half the people in your country are 'sickos', my guess is that you have a generalized hatred of humanity, though I think in actuality you're someone who often defaults to repeating cliches rather than putting thought into what you're saying.

I wonder when exhibit a of this phenomenon would jump in to the debate

Perhaps I should share my views on educated Democrats in a thread were I can take delight in seeing them cope and seethe as the Congress fails to relieve them of their student debt.  Perhaps posts in the vein of "What have you done for me lately?" would make for a great argument.

As for judging people here by the content of their character, I begin by looking at people and their threads.  When people repeatedly post threads where the title is clickbait and provocative, but the substance of the topic/article is not what the thread title reflects, maybe we can judge THOSE people by the content of their character, as evidenced by their actions.

There are educated Republicans I know that are jerks.  There are educated Democrats I know that are OK people.  I don't hate people for their political positions, and, quite frankly, people who do are pitiful.

[Del Tachi]

Interestingly, college educated evangelicals are no less Republican than non-college educated evangelicals.  Though, there are definitely differences in primary voting habits between the two (I'd actually argue that the college educated group is more ideological).

How many Evangelical Democrats are there, period?

Ever heard of Black people?  lmao

[Antonio the Sixth]

The worst of the bunch.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I suppose my opinion of educated Republicans is skewed by how bad so many of the Republicans with a public profile are.

Political people across the board, whether they work in government, campaigns, media, and/or have Wikipedia articles, are a college-educated group.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

How many Evangelical Democrats are there, period?

About 28% of Evangelical voters are affiliated with Democrats (https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/religious-tradition/evangelical-protestant/party-affiliation/).

Many of them are Black voters. However, you do have a few White Evangelical Democrats. Rep. Hillary Scholten identifies as an Evangelical.

[jojoju1998]

How many Evangelical Democrats are there, period?

About 28% of Evangelical voters are affiliated with Democrats (https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/religious-tradition/evangelical-protestant/party-affiliation/).

Many of them are Black voters. However, you do have a few White Evangelical Democrats. Rep. Hillary Scholten identifies as an Evangelical.

Scholten is a member of the Christian Reformed Church of America. It should not be “ conflated “ in the grand scheme of Evangelical world with the Southern Baptists variety which is the most dominant. Although very conservative theologically, it’s not as combative as the latter. And even promoted other social position which could be considered to be left leaning.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Interestingly, college educated evangelicals are no less Republican than non-college educated evangelicals.  Though, there are definitely differences in primary voting habits between the two (I'd actually argue that the college educated group is more ideological).

How many Evangelical Democrats are there, period?

That depends.  At a church like mine (very theologically conservative non-denominational church that sometimes addresses things like abortion and sexuality from the pulpit), it's very few.  If I had to guess, I'd say my church was something like 95-3 (Trump-Biden).  But, there are other churches that would count as evangelical that aren't as unanimous.

[DaleCooper]

"Educated" people are usually quite intolerable regardless of politics. The Republican ones tend to be worse purely because Republicans tend to be crazier and less civilized. I recently had to endure one of them lecturing me on how the gays are taking over public schools so I may be a little more prejudiced against them at the moment.