Basically, to a certain point in your education, I think, you always vote your wallet. And since most college degrees these days are a pale reflection of what they were 30 or 40 years ago, you may as well lump "college grad", "some college" and "high school grad" together.
But with many college educations and even a higher proportion of post-graduate degrees comes greater financial freedom. Now, money isn't such a big deal and other issues hold interest more keenly. Take a look at sukie. He considers his financial well-being to be a cornerstone of his politics and votes his wallet.
Also, people with more education are less likely to rely on moral authorities to shape their politics. The correlation between education and agnosticism has been firmly established.
Last edited by gebobs; 11-08-2012 at 07:42 AM.
Gailey's history. He just doesn't know it yet.
Somebody over at another sports forum is insane. He's a fat-ass who has nothing better to do than run a site like he's some type of powerful person when everyone knows that he's a worthless person. Banning people with no explanation when they simply ask a pertinant question in a chatroom? He removes 1000's of threads that have real meaning to people without so much as an explanation. He barely has a pot to piss in, so his only shot of exerting power in his whole life is to act like an internet Hitler. The funny thing is EVERYONE talks so much s*** about the guy behind his back in Pm's etc. because everyone hates him.
PM ALL OF YOUR FRIENDS IN other sports sites - tell them BillsZone is where it's at. BillsZone has a chance to be everything that the other site should have been, but couldn't be because that other guy is so insane.
"I love both Dan and Wendy. I love those guys. They work so hard. The center-quarterback relationship is a pretty special one. I've got my hands on their butts probably more than their wives, so it's a pretty unique trust and relationship you have."
Billszone 2013 Prediction Contest winner!
i don't know what you're talking about, but what i'm saying is clearly right and you know it. Academia is liberal. IF you stay there for a long time you'll be taught by dozens of liberals and probably not a lot of conservatives. That's just the way it is dude.
- - - Updated - - -
If acedemia is so liberal, why do the republicans send all their kids to Harvard and Yale?
Like, that will never sink in with them. The more you know...the more liberal you become. Their plan of action, of course, is then to attack education.
I think it's a pretty pathetic state of affairs for them, and an utterly amusing state of affairs for us, when the opponent is left to demonize LEARNING. Learning.
"Don't learn things, because then you'll know that everything i'm saying is complete bullcrap".
It's like you guys just don't even hear yourselves. Please, tell me again about the evils of college. The evils of knowing more things, of shedding ignorance. Let's hear it. Hell, make it a focal point of your campaign in 2016, the whole 'god loves rape babies' thing was great, but I say you guys double down the absurdity and go all out and also attack all forms of education.
And so while we're at it, those with a lot of student loans are more likely to vote for Obama...and those with 6+ years of college are more likely to have a lot of student loans.
Here's an article from earlier this year that talks about this trend among holders of advanced degrees
The shifting allegiance of the better-educated – together with the growth of such pro-Democratic constituencies as single women, Hispanics and African-Americans — has been a crucial factor in the revival of the Democratic Party as a fully competitive force in presidential elections. The party’s gains have, in many respects, made up for losses among white working class voters.
In the 1970s and 1980s, the defection of Reagan Democrats gave the Republican Party a clear edge in national contests; by the 1990s and 2000s, the once reliably Republican affluent suburbs surrounding cities like New York and Philadelphia had moved in the opposite direction, empowering the Democratic Party to win the White House in 1992, 1996, and 2008, and the popular vote, if not the presidency, in 2000. By contrast, in the 1970s and 1980s, Republican presidential candidates won, on average, 59 percent of the upscale suburban vote.
The gains the Democrats made were concentrated in one major segment of the well-educated: professionals — salaried employees in schools and colleges, social workers, the arts, the natural and social sciences, knowledge/information workers, “symbol analysts,” “creatives” and so forth.
The replacement of working-class whites with upscale professionals has turned the Democratic coalition into an alliance with a built-in class division. Instead of representing the bottom half of the income distribution as it did from the 1930s to the 1960s, the party has become bifurcated, with roughly 60 percent of the base vote cast by relatively poor and heavily minority voters, and much of the remainder provided by relatively affluent social and cultural liberals.
While constituting a minority, the relatively upscale wing clearly dominates party policy and provides the majority of the activists who run campaigns, serve as delegates to the convention and have become the core of the party’s donor base.
The leverage of the highly-educated wing is reflected in the priority placed on the culture war issues that are of key importance to this wing. Support for abortion rights and gay rights, for example, is an essential litmus test for Democratic presidential candidates. There is no parallel demand that candidates protect and expand food stamps, Medicaid, or other means-tested programs for the poor.
I think this bears out my hypothesis.
your point was that people who have an advanced degree have financial freedom and don't care as much about the economy. your point was wrong. Not everyone who does a 2 year program after their bachelor's is "highly educated" and there's nowhere near as many high income earners as you think. and again you made no mention of student loans.
Are you saying student loans cause liberalism?And so while we're at it, those with a lot of student loans are more likely to vote for Obama...and those with 6+ years of college are more likely to have a lot of student loans.
wtf? this is what happens when you have a board made up of 99% of people who are from the same party...you guys get really bad at arguing the issues because you don't ever have to face real opposition which might make you think and strengthen your positions.
there aren't that many people who have it that good in life that they don't care about the economy....period Income doesn't even have a lot to do with it; there is such a small % of people who make the kind of income to be that independently wealthy anyway. You're truly talking about 1% if that. And out of that 1% many did not have an advanced degree. Small business owners and people who made it big in real estate make up a larger part of the top 1% and 5% than you think.
Meanwhile the guy who took out 200k in debt to not be a plastic surgeon and to make let's say $120,000 per year pre-tax..is not even close to being in a position not to think about his wallet.
Having student debt has nothing to do with liberalism. I'm sure you know someone who took on big loans in school. IT follows them into their 40's most of the time and it can really cramp their style. IT sucks and it's a burden. Obama has made it very clear that he wants to do what he can for people who have it...VERY CLEAR.. I'm sure you know this. So if you have student loans, it's ONE REASON why you may want to vote for Obama. It's not the only reason and it might not be a big enough reason for some. But again, it's a big issue for those who have to deal with it, and I think with everything Obama has done to pander to this crowd..i'm sure it was a factor in some people's decisions to vote for Obama. and since you were hypothesizing about the pool of people who have advanced degrees, i think it's worth mentioning that there are many swimming in that pool who have major student loans.
I'm not concerned with the anecdotal Ph.D in bong making or the equally anecdotal self-taught high school drop out.Not everyone who does a 2 year program after their bachelor's is "highly educated"
How many do I think? I don't recall mentioning anything other than citing the poll numbers...17% postgraduate.and there's nowhere near as many high income earners as you think.
Here is what I'm saying in a nutshell:
* 17% of the electorate hold advanced degrees.
* Obama carried that demographic by 18 points.
* That demographic is more highly compensated than any of the others.
These are facts.
Since they are better paid, it stands to reason that economic issues weigh less heavily with them than with folks that don't make as much money and therefore other issues become more important. That's not to say that they don't care about the economy or even that it is not the most important issue for some of them. Only that other issues now figure more prominently in their politics.
Student loans. Yay. Happy?and again you made no mention of student loans.
Last edited by gebobs; 11-08-2012 at 10:21 AM.
Agreed. Good thing I never said that. Now, since the rest of your post seems to be based on that strawman, I'll just ignore it and see if you understand my previous post.there aren't that many people who have it that good in life that they don't care about the economy....period