Democrats tend to have more of an education than Republicans. Why is this? Are Democrats actually smarter?

http://www.eduinreview.com/blog/2008/09/are-democrats-more-educated-than-republicans/

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html

I'd post some more, but I have to bottle some homebrew.

Discuss.

Knowledge and intelligence are two different aspects of a person...there are many uneducated people who are very intelligent, and there are educated people who aren't all that high on the IQ scale.

Generally speaking, people who have more education know more things, and it's been a pretty standard occurrence that the more you know, the more you tend to vote for Democrats...but it's not all that large of a difference, considering that the biggest blocs of people (some college and college graduates) are not more than a few percentage points off of each other.

It's the "no education whatsoever" crowd that really pulls for the Republicans...but that's not all that many voters, much to the chagrin of the RNC.

Perhaps that's the reason for the unwillingness of Republicans to invest in education of the nation's youth, they're looking to increase their voting base.

Fish on...

Todd

Washing and sanitizing 52 bottles vs. 1 keg. Intelligent?


Discuss.

Not from my perspective. It has everything to do with who protects the rich from paying more taxes. Period.

I'm bottling 22 oz. bottles. I would never waste my beer on 12 oz. bottles. I'm buying kegs in 1 month because I'm tired of bottling so much beer.

One thing at a time. I don't have the money a Republican does. My parent's weren't rich so I never got my trust fund .

What about the sciences? I would be willing to bet without looking at any statistics that people with a B.S. or M.S. tend to vote Democrat.

Once again with my avatar... Are you mad because I have a college education and you don't?

I always figured that more Dems went to college so that they could continue to sponge off of Mom/Dad and avoid having to get a job thus contributing to society. After their 6-8 years of college and Mom/Dad finally cut them off, they start looking for welfare. Thus they vote Democrat.

I have good intuition.

Stoopid iz az stoopid duzz.

You're absolutely right about this. It stands for Idaho.

Idaho does make me happy.

Well said Hankster! I think many of the "D's" get a philosophy of life before they get out in the real world. As they get on in life they see their life's blood get extracted by the liberal agenda and wonder what in the world are we paying for. Then the realization sets in and they turn from what their professors said in college to what they have learned first hand.

My oldest son graduated from medical school about 5 years ago and is living the dream. You should hear him bitch about taxes now. He simply is not the same guy he was when he first got out of school. (By the way, no college loans or government assistance.)

It is a milestone when your kids tell you that they don't think you are as dumb as they originally thought you were.

Be true!

Captain

So from what I can gather you're actually admitting that young people with a Democratic background are actually smarter than young Republicans because they're already thinking for themselves and about the world even before they go to college. Well said.

Is Rush the person who started this whole load of crap about college professors conspiring to corrupt the minds of young Americans? WTF do you think happens in a classroom? Also, how is attending school not the "real world?" Do you think that the real world only involves working a 9-5 job as soon as you graduate from high school?

This Republican/conservative contempt for education sickens me. No wonder America's young are so f-ing stupid and can't compare scholastically to other developed nations. Maybe Todd is right about conservatives trying to ruin our country's educational system so they can keep their voting base.

"It is a milestone when your kids tell you that they don't think you are as dumb as they originally thought you were."

Sounds like a set back in your case. He does realize taxes helped put him through school doesn't he?

I think the whole group think mentality is much more common with those that are college educated or more so those that lived the "college lifestyle". It is very common that many idealistic people assume that voting Democrat is a vote for saving children, stopping wars and some gateway to an enlightened society and they vote blindly under that assumption.

Voting partisan these days is a sign of lapping up every last drop of party propaganda they serve.

Real educated people vote based on facts and research, not washing out to one side or the other.

100% of Republicans think their party is fiscally conservative. Everyone else knows it's a crock of s**t.

The same guys who are "law and order" types claim they'd like to pay for it, too, but are the same "free market" types that don't want the regulations that would stop corporate "America" from sending billions of tax dollars into their own exec's pockets rather than into the treasury to pay for it...a perfect example of the utter disconnect between positions and interests...they claim certain interests, but hold positions that run directly counter to them...almost entirely due to partisan ballwashing.

If actual economic reform, especially corporate tax reform, took place, then we wouldn't have to have a discussion about how many pennies this program or that program costs, or how many pennies this individual or that individual takes from the government...we'd have a discussion about what to do with the trillions that are siphoned out of this country by those greedy pigs.

Fish on...

Todd

Simply buy any atlas and look at the demographic overlays between quality of life, quality of education, infant mortality, obesity rates, pollution levels, unemployment, and just about every socioeconomic factor possible, The Bible Belt glows like an angry hemmoroidal sphincter of all the Worst of the Worst of our country.

Matter of fact, the vast majority of the worst urban crime areas in America are located in the Southern half of the US.

Now why all this?

Can any of you kids tell us where The Red States are?

And I can back every bit of this up with solid fact.

It's a fact there are more welfare recipients that are registered Democrat, than Republican. Where do you file that, under unemployment or quality of life?

It appears that a lot of assumptions are being made about what was once the backbone of our nation and really most of it is on a physical and spiritual level.

Why don't you just say you don't like ugly fat Christians?

Blanket judgments are exactly what party politics want you to do.

Assuming the Dems are some sort of grassroots peoples party and the GOP is all old white money is about as useful as casting your 2012 vote for Jimmy Carter.

"It's a fact there are more welfare recipients that are registered Democrat, than Republican."

Love to see where you gathered up that "fact"...and I'm guessing it doesn't include the trillions in corporate and farm welfare, which probably almost all goes to Republicans, and likely costs many factors of ten more than what goes to single moms and poor kids...

Let's see your citation for your "fact"...I think you might find that the "blue" states pay far more into the welfare system, and that the "red" states receive far more than they pay in...which, not surprisingly, is exactly the opposite of your "fact"...

Fish on...

Todd

I dont have a citation for it, doubtful you have one that would say otherwise.

I shouldn't have used the word fact since I base it on my personal knowledge and observations of knowing plenty of welfare recipients. Growing up in East Oakland, working in foster care and group home systems and having about 10-12 family members that are on some sort of public assistance and have been for quite some time.

I apologize, I was out of line

I would love to say the Dems are all good and the GOP is all bad, but I cant. I am not being Centrist, I am just making the ugly observation of checks and balances on both sides... at least for the things I love about my country.

I just think throwing obese, mid west, christian and other conditions under the bus as "the root of the problems in this country is far too acceptable... and I am none of these... but if it was skinny, far east, Hindu getting tossed around, there would be a candle light vigil.

I find it super interesting how everyone says the "wealthy" folks vote their pocketbooks and support the GOP, yet the 20 wealthiest people I know (Microsoft, local) are all staunchly in favor not only of Obama but most of his agenda...

So it's not as simple as voting your pocketbook. It seems that how you grew up matters a lot too -- as most of these folks made their money this generation, not trust/inheritance?

I'm citing Goode's World Atlas by Rand McNally.

What's your source?

Since you didn't do your homework you receive an F for FAIL.

Poverty, '08:
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/The...en&-_sse=on

Red states, '08:
http://2008election.procon.org/files/electionimages/map3.jpg

Democrats tend to favor social welfare which provides a minimal stipend to poor moms with kids.

Republicans tend to favor corporate welfare which goes to already rich businessmen and agribusinesses.

I capitualate: Republicans must be smarter. They get the bigger welfare checks.

Sg

http://scatter.wordpress.com/2009/02/16/red-state-blue-state-welfare-state-subsidizing-state/

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/Stocks_E/threadview?m=tm&bn=24619&tid=1856042&mid=1856042&tof=8&frt=2

http://www.topalli.com/blue/

The "Blue" states have been subsidizing the "Red" states for damn near forever...we here in Washington are picking up the tab for the fat, uneducated, divorce loving, right wing religious zealots all over the country...

Fish on...

Todd

http://americanreality.wordpress.com/2009/03/04/red-states-are-welfare-states/

"So, the next time all you angry right-wing ideologs start railing against what you perceive to be Obama’s socialist agenda, please remember that it is you who are largely dependent on it. It is you who collect the majority of the money that is paid out through the entitlement system you are crazy enough to want to destroy. It is you whose wages are so repressed by the corporate masters whose asses you kiss on a daily basis that could not survive without the kindness of the liberal elites who reside in the donor states. Ironically, the welfare states of this nation are its red ones."

Takes five minutes on Google...maybe four.

Fish on...

Todd

If the red states seceded, they'd be members of the Third World overnight...and junior members, at that.

Fish on...

Todd

KK-

To a point, I have to agree, however, there are redneck Taliban types under rocks wherever you tread, but in varying degrees, depending on the secular educational opportunities afforded that particular nation.

The American South has a third-world agrarian based society, long held in place by it's ruling elite-- the large land owners (former plantation owners), which is the essential model of government desired by the rest of America's economic elite.

The features of this model include having only the most basic public education system allowed by law, a retrograde tax system, a weak middle class, and a deeply entrenched socio-economic and educational disparity between the wealthy and the dirt-poor. It's the exact definition of Oligarchy and almost feudal in it's structure.

Other prime examples of this class structure are found in Latin America, Asia, and Africa, but particularly Mexico, where over 90% of the national infrastructure is owned by twelve families. Through this control, they can have the government by the short & curlies, in that with the flick of a pen or switch, can cripple the national economy and so force any wage or working condition, tariff or trade decision, or subsidy they so desire.

Where you see the Taliban types are usually in these countries where the ruling elite is so distanced from the populace that these local laws don't apply to them because of their power. Such as in Saudi Arabia where the wealthy send their children abroad to the world's best colleges and academies, while Achmed Q. Camelfukker, (or alternately, Billy Lee Wifebeater) is lucky to be taught "righty-tighty, lefty-loosey," and so grows up to be a reactionary fukwit that believes anything they're told, especially if it comes in a handsome, leather bound book with gold leaf lettering on the cover, or from the nearest bunny-eared idiotbox, blaring the mantras of the elite's power structure such as FOX or Al-Jazeera.

Comparing FOX to Al-Jazeera is a pretty big stetch for me, but I guess that is just my point of view.

I don't recall that Al-Jazeera has gone to court and argued...and won...on the contention that its right to free speech protects its ability to not tell the truth in its "reporting", as FauxNews has done.



"“The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdock, successfully argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves. We are pushing for a consumer protection solution that labels news content according to its adherence to ethical journalism standards that have been codified by the Society of Professional Journalists (Ethics: spj.org).

A News Quality Rating System and Content Labeling approach, follows a tradition of consumer protection product labeling, that is very familiar to Americans. The ratings are anti-censorship and can benefit consumers.

http://www.civilianism.com/gate/2009/06/fox-news-gets-court-ok-to-lie/

On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.

On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station’s pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was “a false, distorted, or slanted” story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy cows.

The court did not dispute the heart of Akre’s claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of irate advertisers. Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news.

The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdock, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.

In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a “policy,” not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation. Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was “totally vindicated” by the verdict."

Fish on...

Todd

The right wing whack job response, as usual, will be to avoid the fact that Fox admits it lies in its coverage, and knows it, by the usual technique of claiming that everyone does it, so it must be OK...

Fish on...

Todd

I think the Righties are behind this REVO craze, too

I reel my Revos with my right hand...but not because I saw how to on Fox

Fish on...

Todd

The correlation between red state and poverty is also relative to two major components of our economy, ports and industry. Of course states with little industry and low populations are hitting poverty levels and coastal states and those with sufficient industry are going to be where the educated are going to work, where economic crisis will hit the least.

You really cant blame these states for falling short when so much of Americas manufacturing and other industries that brought stability to these regions has been moved to foreign lands. One of the reasons for red states turning blue in the last presidential election was based on Obamas sermon on NAFTA reform and bringing manufacturing back to the US.

Look at the numbers of welfare recipients in some of the blue states compared to red and the percentage of change http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/01/25/us/20090126-welfare-table.html

Percent of households with cash public assistance income -
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_per...sistance-income

You can point your finger at the obese wal-mart crowd all you want but there are plenty of hipster douche-bags sucking off the government too.

The very people that those poor red staters vote for are the ones responsible for their poor economic well-being, leading to them being the leading suckers of the government teat...if they'd stop voting for people who screw them every time, they'd probably have a better chance of digging themselves out.

Fish on...

Todd

...'course, they're "leaders" like to tell them it's always someone else's fault...the liberal elite, those brown folks from south of the border, Islamo-fascists, and environmentalists...and since they're not only poor and unhealthy, but uneducated, too, they like hearing that it's always someone else's fault...and continue to vote in those who are actually at fault.

They're like quail voting for bird dogs.

Fish on...

Todd

I agree,

It works both ways, there are plenty of sellouts on both sides, be it the liberal guise of foreign relations and human rights or the conservative platform of ethics and morality. They are both selling out the US for monetary gains, they merely offer up what reasoning makes you feel better about it.

Politicians are doing the exact thing the American voter needs to do, play the parties against themselves to achieve what the is best for the common citizen, and stop with the assumption that one party is going to lead them to the promise land.

Does anyone else find it a bit strange that when the patience of the American people is hitting its limit in regards to the current economic climate, they offer up some sort of distraction?

Hey look over there, gay marriage!

Oh look over here, gays in the military!

While people busy themselves with the red / blue fight, the campaign promises continue to lapse, the economy continues to fall.

Keeping people desperate and distracted by political scrimmages is the best way for government to retain control over the masses instead of vise versa.

Have to agree.

We have much bigger issues facing this country right now than gay rights.

Namely, ending outsourcing to re-establish our shattered manufacturing base.

...not to mention offshoring that deprives the Treasury of far more money than any retarded social program that the parties are usually wrangling over...

Fish on...

Todd

So I guess, KK, you are admitting you vote for your economic interests over your moral beliefs?

Statistics are easy to distort and rarely show the real truth. I had a call once from a national survey company that asked questions that were so skewed I refused to answer any of them. Got one for the Republican Party that asked questions like, "Do you support the democrats attempts to squelch the patriot act and allow terrorists to freely act in the United States? " If you don't know the methods and exact questions and other parimeters of how statistics are gathered, they are useless.

Real life experience tells me that every low income person I have met has voted democratic, unless they have strong religious beliefs. Maybe thats why you liberals hate religion so much. If you could get rid of it, every poor person would fall right in line to be controlled.

To think that the republicans alone use scare tacticist is a joke. Every time an election comes up I have to listen to my mother-in-law
rant and rave about how how the republicans will cut her social security and toss her out on the street. She would vote for satan rather than one of those republicans who will take everything she so desparately needs the government to give her. If you could get the rest of the poor people to stop having religious beliefs, the democrats would rule absolutely.
Wow, kind of sounds like what China and Russia aimed for. Make the government God, make everyone reliant on them.

The poor folks in red states don't need to lose their religion...they just need to graduate from high school, and they'll likely vote for Democrats...

Fish on...

Todd

+1, and add to that we are allowing more foreign workers than ever within our borders on work visa's. Workers from foreign countries taking jobs that many americans would love to have during these times.
It may not hurt as much if they became somewhat normal consumers within our society, but they dont come close to reaching this status.
I work within a company where I observe hoards of these types of workers who barely contribute to our economy, because they remit all of their earnings to their families back home, and pack 8-10 people into a two bedroom apartment while they are here for a year contract.

It's a lose-lose for America.

SkyGuy, there's a certain telecommunications company out there that is one of the MOST egregious off all the big conglomerates in the entire country at evading tax dollars and sucking off the gubmint teat, not to mention very shady fraudulent balance sheets and earnings reports...

Very bad.

Fish on...

Todd

Here ya go.

Jobs in Iraq

KK,
If you think I swallow the Republican lies, you are very mistaken. I hope half of what you spewed today is trolling, otherwise I really question your intelligence.

Todd,
I think the red states voting records have to do with a wide range of factors. Race, voting accessibility, religious beliefs, income, family status, and education are all factors that must be accounted for.

Seattle for example, votes highly liberal. My guess though is that if you took only married families with children, the numbers would be much different than the city in whole.

Perhaps looking at income for voting preferance is not nearly as important as looking at disposable income. Single people earning $120,000 will vote completely different than a married couples with 5 kids earning $120,000. A dual working couple with no children that have the same household income, will also, most likely, have other political leanings.

I bet you the single population of San Fransico votes entirely different than the married population. I wonder what that means?

So much of statistical findings can be changed by accounting for different factors. I hate these debates because in the end I think you all come out sounding like idiots, regardless of what side you are arguing.

If you want, I will create the parimeters of a innocuous sounding survey that will swing the political preference of King County more conservative or liberal. I can't say how much, but I can guarentee I could do it by 3 points or more without anyone being able to see. In some cases I probably could get a 10% or more swing. Quick examples only survey on Sundays between 9:30 am and 1:30. Bet is a lot different than if you survey the same number of households on Monday at the same time period, or perhaps on Friday nights. Wonder how much it would change if I also was able to use cell phone numbers during the same time periods. Who is going to stop on the street if I use good looking, professional 25 to 40 year old men and women compared to poorly dressed, over weight 35 to 65 year old women. What if I have the surveyors drag along their children or set up next in pikes place VS first ave vs on busses during rush hour.

once again partisan politics seems to exist for one purpose nowadays, to divide the public into a never ending disagreement.

I would love to see a discussion that wasn't blues pointing at the reds and vise versa.

subverting the intent of partisan politics and addressing candidates and issues on their merit alone we act as a republic and not a democracy as was the intent of our forefathers.

When we argue among ourselves as to what side is better we do ourselves (as the general public) a disservice.

I think that most people are generally fiscally conservative and socially liberal (to varying degrees of course) but partisan politics play against that by not allowing one without the other.

While we the people draw lines in the sand based on gays in the military and "in god we trust", the real agenda continues to roll on without significant challenge.

What would really turn things in this country around is what the existing government fears the most, nonpartisan unity of the people.

Well, yeah. That's a given.

Bigtime +1.

I wonder if it would be possible to have a thread where both sides spent as much energy trying to figure out the issues they could agree on, or atleast agree to compromise on, instead of the all too common forum status quo.

Don't get me wrong though, I love trying to get my innermet caps in as much as the next guy. So with that being said, all this chit is Bush's fault.

Nah, it was Woodrow Wilson

Considering the long-term fallout of The Versailles Treaty, I'd have to say you're right.

and the federal reserve

“I have said it already, I am convinced that the way to build a new and better world is not capitalism. Capitalism leads us straight to hell.”
Hugo Chavez quote

(wonders where all those RVRFSHR spoons and worms are made...)

Minnesota...which, I think you already knew

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. Not kidding.

...but I'm not even talking about outsourcing work overseas...I'm talking about expatriating your company overseas to avoid paying any taxes on your income, a different issue altogether.

Fish on...

Todd

Zing! Take that, mick!

Ahhh straight from the DailyKos I see. That would be my first choice for polling information about Republicans too KK.

I agree...we should poll RWWJ's who think Glen Beck is a viable senatorial candidate and love watching FauxNews, and then the numbers would be...

Percent of Whack Jobs who think Obama should be impeached: 82%

Percent of Whack Jobs who think he was not born in the US: 86%

Percent of Whack Jobs who think Obama's a racist: 92%

Percent of Whack Jobs who think Obama is a socialist: 99.8%

Not to mention...

Percent of Whack Jobs who think Saddam Hussein persnally flew a plane into the WTC: 75%

Percent of Whack Jobs who think we should "not really worry about" finding OBL: 88%

Percent of Whack Jobs who think "trickle down ecomonics" actually trickles down: 89%

This could go on longer than I'm able to type...

Fish on...

Todd

Nah, I forgot. I had in my mind it was the West Indies, I'm just confused.

Apologies.

I'm still waiting for that Sharia Law the GOP promised us.

There's a painfully consistent pattern I've noticed. When "O" speaks up, things go the other way.

Beer Summit......no resolve
Olympics in Chicago......nope
Massachusetts Senator campaign.....wrong again
Medical.......who knows? somewhere between token coverage and nothing.
Bash the SCOTUS.....really, really good move.

All I can say is, Go, 'O' !!

I knew from the get-go that I couldn't afford him......now so do the Dems.

... and still better than having this riding shotgun

She has good oral hygeine.

Oh yeah.
Screamer and multi.

Even the liberals admit that Palin is good for something. Just doesn't happen to be politics.

So that's why she quit the governorship.....
She may be smarter than I thought.

"Lafayette, We Are Here"

But Palin served kool aid to everyone and collected dollar bills.... the hard way.