So...how come Romney lost...?

[_Kevin Graham]

Yet the correlation is still there.

Does your claim that "the poorly educated in those states tend to vote Democratic" hold true if you control for race? I doubt it. In the South, blacks vote Democratic, and whites vote Republican. The big question is whether college-educated white southerners are more or less Republican that non-college-educated white southerners.

Exactly. EA hasn't produced any data that would back up his claim that Romney wins the college educated, though I'm sure he has some polling data in mind that he's probably putting too much confidence in.

I will just point out that Florida was completely red except in counties where there are large universities. Now you can probably chalk up Miami-Dade and Orange county to something besides the University of Miami or UCF, but Gainesville and Tallahassee were in the middle of nowhere, blue counties isolated in a swarm of red counties. What other explanation could there possibly be other than the college students/faculty?

I found it:



If Romney won the college educated just by a slim margin, then I suspect the Mormon vote had a lot to do with that. After all Utah has something like 70% college graduates.

EA doesn't provide any data or specifics about where Romney won the college educated. I know those with advanced degrees went with Obama again.

And I live in the South, and can speak with the utmost confidence that this area is just saturated with ignorant, rabid Romney supporters. EA's suggesting that Obama has most of those people, simply doesn't jive with my experience. I'm sure Obama is going to land most of the black vote, and black folks tend to be less educated, but last time I checked, Blacks still represented less than 20% of the overall population. Sad to say I know a ton of uneducated white folks, and I can't think of a single one that supports Obama. Mainly because they can't stand the idea of having a black man occupy the White House another four years.

[_Jaybear]

Exactly. EA hasn't produced any data that would back up his claim that Romney wins the college educated, though I'm sure he has some polling data in mind that he's probably putting too much confidence in.

...

If Romney won the college educated just by a slim margin, then I suspect the Mormon vote had a lot to do with that. After all Utah has something like 70% college graduates.

IF EA's claim is that Romney won college grads, then he is wrong.
According to the CNN exit poll, Obama won college educated voters 50/48%.
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/result ... exit-polls

But as you both note, even if he were right, he would be confusing correlation with causation, by using that fact to rebut the notion that as people become more educated, then tend to vote democratic.
If Romney had won the college educated by a slim margin it would be because college grads are much whiter than the general population, and Romney won the white vote ... 59% to 39%.

Given the slim margin 50/48 and the disproportionate pretense of white college grads, its fairly obvious that as white people become better educated they must tend to vote democratic.

[_Ceeboo]

Hey Kevin

And I live in the South, and can speak with the utmost confidence that this area is just saturated with ignorant, rabid Romney supporters.

Yea, there are a lot of those ignorant old fart racist white guys around my area too. Hang in there my friend, the very good news is that this generation of so called 'Americans' will die off soon!

Sad to say I know a ton of uneducated white folks,

Code for republicans, yes?

and I can't think of a single one that supports Obama.

Well, they are uneducated.

Mainly because they can't stand the idea of having a black man occupy the White House another four years.

Yup, that was the main reason for me too.
I just looked at pictures, found the white guy, and voted!

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_mcjathan]

I suspect Romney not winning better fits the worldview of many millennialist LDS.

Spot-on, cinepro. Here's an email that has been making the rounds in my very TBM family:

After the emotional pinnacle of this last week of elections, I've had many thoughts-- some angry, some fearful, and some bewildering. A friend of ours sent this to us, and I thought it was some fantastic insight that brought for me, a little comfort and peace in this world that is falling apart before our very eyes. Thought I'd share.

Some thoughts from a fellow church member.....

Subject:The real winner in campaign 2012
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 02:50:05 -0700

It is Election Night 2012, and I'm sitting here at my computer listening to Governor Romney's
concession speech, trying to come to grips with his defeat---our defeat. And into my mind comes
three interesting thoughts. The first comes with a scripture:

"Behold, I will hasten my work in its time." (D&C 88:73).

If the Lord's "work" is to "bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39),
and if that process begins by hearing about the Church and seeing its members, then the sooner and the faster the greatest number of people can see and hear about the Latter-day Saints---especially about exemplary Saints like the Romneys---the more the work is hastened. And though the Church has 55,000+ missionaries who are quietly and patiently roaming the world knocking on doors, the Lord has brought the LDS Governor and his LDS family into the very homes of millions of people around the U.S. and the world via TV, radio, and Internet for more than a year now---people who might never have received or accepted the missionaries or LDS neighbors, let alone have learned about the LDS way of life. But now they have listened, watched, and learned, and many of them will likely be more curious and receptive to the missionaries in the future. And that also goes for many of the Evangelicals, Protestants, and Catholics who locked arms with the Latter-Day Saints (thanks to Glenn Beck) during this long presidential campaign. Bottom line: the Romneys lost a hard-fought political battle, but they---and the Church---won a decisive, long-awaited cultural and spiritual victory in opening the minds and hearts of millions.

Another post-election thought: "Be careful what you pray for."

Had Romney won, it is highly doubtful that he and his team would have been able to rescue the nation's wounded economy from the purposeful destruction that Obama has intentionally inflicted upon it, Obama having done so in order to "fundamentally transform" our free enterprise system into a Socialist state. Had Romney won, the only possible way to have saved the nation and its economy would have been to make deep cuts in the welfare and entitlement programs---cuts that would have been branded "murderous, discriminatory and racist" at every turn by the Liberal mainstream media. And the ever-increasing drumbeat of these accusations over the next four years would have given license to thousands---perhaps millions--- of malcontents to take to the streets in "civil unrest" (a.k.a. anarchy). As such, Romney's never-ending vilification in print and in the electronic media would have soon painted him---and his fellow Mormons---as the enemies of America, with all the resulting antagonism, stress, and persecution of the Church, both at home and abroad.
As is, over the next four years, right-wing zealots---not Christian Conservatives--- will likely become increasingly resistant, confrontational, and possibly violent in response to the creeping Socialism. Thus, "social unrest" may begin at the other end of the political spectrum, likely precipitating equally violent responses from the pro-Socialist masses.

And this foregoing scenario brings me to the third and final thought tonight, one which also was accompanied by the written word, this time in the form of a powerful metaphor by Hugh Nibley. I close with it:

“On the last night of a play, the whole cast and stage crew stay in the theater until the small, or not so small, hours of the morning striking the old set. If there is to be a new opening soon, as the economy of the theater requires, it is important that the new set should be in place and ready for the opening night; all the while the old set was finishing its usefulness and then being taken down, the new set was rising in splendor to be ready for the drama that would immediately follow. So it is with this world. It is not our business to tear down the old set---the agencies that do that are already hard at work and very efficient---the set is coming down all around us with spectacular effect. Our business is to see to it that the new set is well on the way for what is to come---and that means a different kind of politics, beyond the scope of the tragedy that is now playing its closing night. We are preparing for the establishment of Zion.”

Nibley, Hugh. Nibley on the Timely and the Timeless: Classic Essays of Hugh W. Nibley, Provo, Utah: Brigham Young
University Religious Studies Center, 1978, p. 302

[_krose]

the Lord has brought the LDS Governor and his LDS family into the very homes of millions of people around the U.S. and the world via TV, radio, and Internet for more than a year now---people who might never have received or accepted the missionaries or LDS neighbors, let alone have learned about the LDS way of life. But now they have listened, watched, and learned

And what is the main thing they have learned? That "lyin' for the Lord" also includes lying for political advantage, and that honesty and integrity are not that highly valued.

[_Kevin Graham]

I found the data EA is probably referring to. Here is an interesting list of exit poll results:

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/resul ... exit-polls

It is worth noting that Obama won the "uneducated" or those without any college, by a whopping 1% (51%). And the exit polling was only done 18 states.

Those with "some college" which would include current students, Obama won that group with 49%. It does saying what percentage went with Romney or independent.

Those with a college degree, Romney won with 51%.

Those with an advanced degree, Obama won with 55%.

But if exit polling data were provided for all the states, there could easily be some shifts going in either direction.

[_EAllusion]

Does your claim that "the poorly educated in those states tend to vote Democratic" hold true if you control for race? I doubt it. In the South, blacks vote Democratic, and whites vote Republican. The big question is whether college-educated white southerners are more or less Republican that non-college-educated white southerners.

Why's that the big question? If you're trying to argue that there's a correlation between education level and political preference to imply some point about the relative intelligence of each political preference you can't exclude races to juice the stats in your favor.

[_EAllusion]

I found the data EA is probably referring to. Here is an interesting list of exit poll results:

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/resul ... exit-polls

It is worth noting that Obama won the "uneducated" or those without any college, by a whopping 1% (51%). And the exit polling was only done 18 states.

Those with "some college" which would include current students, Obama won that group with 49%. It does saying what percentage went with Romney or independent.

Those with a college degree, Romney won with 51%.

Those with an advanced degree, Obama won with 55%.

But if exit polling data were provided for all the states, there could easily be some shifts going in either direction.

That's not the only exit polls that look at this question, but yes, that's what they overall indicate. It used to be - as in from FDR all the way to the millennium - that Democrats owned the poorly educated and highly educated, but got destroyed among the moderately educated. Republicans owned the college educated. Recently there's been a trend of Republicans gaining ground among the poorly educated and losing ground among the college educated. This has gotten to the point that it's almost evened out, but they still have a slight structural advantage among the college educated. So in 2008 Obama won the college educated, but did so more narrowly than in his overall vote total because Republicans had a baseline advantage there. So trying to connect education level to political preference in the way you want doesn't work. In fact, the real state of affairs is the opposite of the point you are trying to make. Whether a state is "red" or "blue" doesn't necessarily tell you much about who the red and blue voters are in that state. Largely low-income minority voters in Alabama aren't exactly a well-educated sort being overwhelmed by a crimson tide of dumb hicks. Oddly enough, that's a poorly informed way of trying to analyze the data that suggests you need more education.

[_EAllusion]

What other explanation could there possibly be other than the college students/faculty?

College towns are overwhelmingly Democratic. Young college students and faculty tend to be Democrats. Older people with college degrees lean more Republican. Colleges towns aren't just Democratic because of the universities though. College towns tend to be situated in urban areas, which are more Democratic. The major ones often are located in state capitals that also tend to be much more Democratic due to the influence of public sector unions, greater trust in government intervention, etc. I live in a highly liberal college town where all of the above apply.

If Romney won the college educated just by a slim margin, then I suspect the Mormon vote had a lot to do with that. After all Utah has something like 70% college graduates.

Oh dear God. Mormons make up a quite small % of the electorate. The hypocrisy in watching you trying to connect Republican-voting behavior to ignorance while you flail about trying to understand stat attribution is Droopy-esque.

EA doesn't provide any data or specifics about where Romney won the college educated.

America.

I know those with advanced degrees went with Obama again.

They did. People with advanced degrees still make up a small portion of the electorate and a smallish portion of the college educated. If you separate out the college educated category between those with advanced degrees and just undergraduates, Romney's advantage becomes even larger among the latter.

And I live in the South, and can speak with the utmost confidence that this area is just saturated with ignorant, rabid Romney supporters. EA's suggesting that Obama has most of those people, simply doesn't jive with my experience.

You're hanging out with the wrong ignorant people. There's an apocryphal story about Pauline Kael that she couldn't believe that Richard Nixon won because she didn't know anyone who voted for him. Such is the limitations of anecdotal experience. Your attitude is provincial.

I'm sure Obama is going to land most of the black vote, and black folks tend to be less educated, but last time I checked, Blacks still represented less than 20% of the overall population.

Heh. What % of the population are Mormons that you are attributing Romney's college educated edge too? Toss in Hispanics, which Obama overwhelming won, and that's a substantial portion of the population to skew education statistics with.

[_EAllusion]

...

CNN's exit poll has Obama performing slightly better, but still worse among the college educated than his overall performance, which still suggests a structural edge for Republicans if you accept this year had a +1 or greater Democrat lean off a neutral election, which it almost certainly did.

Given the slim margin 50/48 and the disproportionate pretense of white college grads, its fairly obvious that as white people become better educated they must tend to vote democratic.

Kevin's argument isn't about white people. He offered a link about white people because the trend he wants to identify only exists among white people and he mistakenly thought his link helped his case. He wants to make a point about education level and political affiliation because he wants to imply that voting Democrat is somehow a consequence of greater knowledge/intelligence. To prove his point he showed a popular graphic that shows the least educated states tend to be red, but the best educated tend to be blue. But that's is an inaccurate inference. The poorly educated in a poorly educated state can vote blue, even overwhelmingly, and the state still turn out red (and vica versa). As it happens, Romney actually did quite well among the college educated, so case in point.

Kevin actually made a hardy-har-har comment about literacy rates in red states too when we know that illiterates, while not a high turnout demographic, tend to vote Democrat. Heck, literacy tests used to be used to suppress demographics that currently vote mostly Democrat within our living memory.

You're rebuttal to this is that the trend holds true among white people. But that's a nonsequiter, unless you think other races simply do not matter and should be treated as nonpeople. You simply cannot take the fact that a state went red or blue in an election, notice general demographic trends within that state, and make generalizations about Republicans or Democrats from that. It's dumb.