Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And so do the majority of people with a college degree. Which was the point of this entire thread. If you don't get that, I'm sorry but I'm moving on as it's clearly a waste of my time trying to explain something this simple.
47% of the people with college degrees voted for Obama in 2012.
51% voted for Romney.
If you don't know which of those are a majority, then you need to get a refund on your college degree.
Not at all surprising honestly since he basically represents uneducated, geriatric, neanderthals.
Other major dividers are education level, and age. Wisconsin Democrats tend to do markedly better among the younger and more educated, while Walker and Wisconsin Republicans do better among those of middle age, and those with limited education.
"and educated?" Meaning, everyone else is stupid? Like those who support Trump are "stupid?"
I wonder how many Wisconsin women helped to defeat the attempts to recall Walker? How many of them are educated?
This is like saying, "anyone who would support a Republican does so because they are ignorant and less educated."
This kind of rhetoric is simply hateful and childish.
The poll was by Marquette law school. A nice Catholic University. Daily Kos simply wrote an article with analyzing the findings.
Please refute the actual findings and data. I mean I understand walker supporters aren't educated so this might be difficult thing to ask on this forum... But you never know.
Tell me how you know Walker supporters aren't educated?
I can say the same thing about Obama supporters, and I'm betting there is more evidence to validate that claim.
Besides, having a college 'education' does not equate to being educated. Many college grads are totally clueless. They are "know nothings." They can parrot their liberal professors. That's it!
Not at all surprising honestly since he basically represents uneducated, geriatric, neanderthals.
Other major dividers are education level, and age. Wisconsin Democrats tend to do markedly better among the younger and more educated, while Walker and Wisconsin Republicans do better among those of middle age, and those with limited education.
Who knew that all of those welfare recipients (a key Democrat constituency) were so well-educated?
If we were to use the charisma factor as you stated, Walker wouldn't stand a chance in the first place.
Walker has won in his state elections not by building coalitions but by turning out his base in a very polarized electorate. It's different in a presidential election.
In presidential elections, WI has gone for the Democrats for the last 26 years. Not even Paul Ryan on the ticket in 2012 could change that. That won't change in 2016 with a lot of the unpopularity of Walker's moves, legislatively.
I was talking about charisma with regards to presidential elections specifically.
Sure. And Republicans win the voters with college degrees in Presidential elections- with one exception. Obama won college educated voters 49-48% in 2008. But the trend went back to normal in 2012, with Obama losing college educated voters by 4%.
The Dems biggest margins are among the least educated. They win 2-1 among people with no high school degree.
Dems also win among the low income while Republicans win households over $100,000.
These are very accurate and well researched numbers - thank you for bringing unambiguous math into the debate. I would contend your interpretation has a significant flaw, however, that must be addressed. Using your same link, the data is as follows......
Some HS - 3.0% of voters, Obama 64% Romney 35% HS graduate - 21.0% of voters, Obama 51% Romney 48% Some college - 29.0% of voters, Obama 49% Romney 48% College graduate - 29.0% of voters, Obama 47% Romney 51% Postgraduate study - 18.0% of voters, Obama 55% Romey 42%
These categories are discreet (they add up to 100%) - so a weighted average is in order. If we take the sum of college graduates and ALL people who have done Postgraduate Study (one must be degreed to engage in such an endeavor), we get All College Graduates, and the following number:
All College Graduates - 47% of voters, Obama 51.3% Romney 48.7%
(Even as a Liberal Arts undergraduate, I took statistics. This is a gimme.)
The very well educated broke for Obama by 13% (and more so in 2008). It certainly seems counter-intuitive that a group who by definition earns more than the others also votes more leftist as of late. Why? I've seen a few interpretations of this data, some backed by evidence, and it suggests that there is a correlation between higher education and "social liberalness" - or at least tolerance at a level above the average Mississippian.
This is the essence of the current Democratic coalition - keep a lock on the poor, continue getting 80%+ of the minority vote (their percentage is growing), and harvest the well educated by offering a contrast to the silly moralism (or trailer-park nativism) of the modern GOP. This coalition is increasing as a percentage of the electorate, which makes the GOP's doubling down on undereducated white people particularly bizzare (but understandable given the infiltration of the party ranks by quasi-racists, evangelicals and AM radio dolts). Since the early Reagan years, the GOP has had trouble with math - initially with national debt, and now with electoral calculus.
I will contend that, as a whole, the US is a slightly center-right country in orientation (especially in terms of economics, size of government and foreign policy), so seeing the continued bumbling of the GOP is interesting to watch. The easiest avenue to gaining an electoral majority would be to cut into the 70% of Hispanics who voted Democratic - a near impossibility given the Trump sideshow and AM radio fanning of the flames. Followed by this would be an appeal to the well educated by dropping some of the more stupid moralism of the party (to include the attacks on immigrants), but it would take an artful politician to navigate this nomination minefield, and I don't think any of the more moderate contenders have that kind of juice.
Bottom line, you have lost the vote in 5 of the last 6 Presidential elections, and you are fighting against a demographic trend that will eventually bury you (if you do not change). Scott Walker is probably not the guy to do this (he might improve the numbers among "some college" voters, given his lack of a degree) - but I am sure he gets adequate "mega dittos" all the same.
These are very accurate and well researched numbers - thank you for bringing unambiguous math into the debate. I would contend your interpretation has a significant flaw, however, that must be addressed. Using your same link, the data is as follows......
Some HS - 3.0% of voters, Obama 64% Romney 35% HS graduate - 21.0% of voters, Obama 51% Romney 48% Some college - 29.0% of voters, Obama 49% Romney 48% College graduate - 29.0% of voters, Obama 47% Romney 51% Postgraduate study - 18.0% of voters, Obama 55% Romey 42%
The least educated have the biggest divides. The least educated prefer Dems 2 to 1. So the OP looks like a fool for claiming the least educated people vote for Republicans.
These categories are discreet (they add up to 100%) - so a weighted average is in order. If we take the sum of college graduates and ALL people who have done Postgraduate Study (one must be degreed to engage in such an endeavor), we get All College Graduates, and the following number:
All College Graduates - 47% of voters, Obama 51.3% Romney 48.7%
(Even as a Liberal Arts undergraduate, I took statistics. This is a gimme.)
The very well educated broke for Obama by 13% (and more so in 2008). It certainly seems counter-intuitive that a group who by definition earns more than the others also votes more leftist as of late. Why? I've seen a few interpretations of this data, some backed by evidence, and it suggests that there is a correlation between higher education and "social liberalness" - or at least tolerance at a level above the average Mississippian.
Considering Dems depend on the poorest and least educated to get their candidates elected, then that would make some of their voters also the least tolerate using your logic. And you've nicely proved my point with a slap at a whole state. (which ironically is made up of 40% blacks, a group that votes 95+% for Dems)
This is the essence of the current Democratic coalition - keep a lock on the poor, continue getting 80%+ of the minority vote (their percentage is growing), and harvest the well educated by offering a contrast to the silly moralism (or trailer-park nativism) of the modern GOP. This coalition is increasing as a percentage of the electorate, which makes the GOP's doubling down on undereducated white people particularly bizzare (but understandable given the infiltration of the party ranks by quasi-racists, evangelicals and AM radio dolts). Since the early Reagan years, the GOP has had trouble with math - initially with national debt, and now with electoral calculus.
Look, more "tolerance." BTW- Republicans won the 2014 House Elections among college age voters by 10 points. So even larger margins than the 2012 election.
I will contend that, as a whole, the US is a slightly center-right country in orientation (especially in terms of economics, size of government and foreign policy), so seeing the continued bumbling of the GOP is interesting to watch. The easiest avenue to gaining an electoral majority would be to cut into the 70% of Hispanics who voted Democratic - a near impossibility given the Trump sideshow and AM radio fanning of the flames. Followed by this would be an appeal to the well educated by dropping some of the more stupid moralism of the party (to include the attacks on immigrants), but it would take an artful politician to navigate this nomination minefield, and I don't think any of the more moderate contenders have that kind of juice.
Dems are not appealing to the well educated. They are appealing to he people who think Guam might tip over.
Bottom line, you have lost the vote in 5 of the last 6 Presidential elections, and you are fighting against a demographic trend that will eventually bury you (if you do not change). Scott Walker is probably not the guy to do this (he might improve the numbers among "some college" voters, given his lack of a degree) - but I am sure he gets adequate "mega dittos" all the same.
5 of the last 6? Last time I checked, Bush was president twice, whether you like it or not. How have the last few Senate elections worked out?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
