Watching the Republican National Convention was a little like being lost in an Alaskan snowstorm: I was blinded by the unbearable whiteness of being a Republican delegate. It was surprising, therefore, to find out that the delegates were even whiter than they appeared on TV. It seems the camera not only adds ten pounds, it also increases the amount of melanin in the room.
<
p>
| cite: 1, 2, 3 | Democrats | Republicans | National Average |
| White | 57% | 93% | 74% |
| Black | 25% | 2% | 13% |
| Latino | 12% | 5% | 15% |
| Asian | 5% | ~0% ? | 4% |
| Male | 50% | 68% | ~50% |
While 44% of all delegates at the DNC were minorities, this was true for only 7% of RNC delegates. In fact, this was one of the whitest RNC conventions in decades, pretty much since Black Americans effectively regained the franchise:
Only 36 of the 2,380 delegates seated on the convention floor are black, the lowest number since the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies began tracking diversity at political conventions 40 years ago [Link]
This was a big shift from 2000 and 2004, when the Bush campaign successfully reached out strongly to Black and Latino voters. The absence of Latino voters was particularly striking, probably because Latino activists have been driven out of the party grassroots that constitute the delegates by the rancor over immigration.
The party has also made a concerted effort to court Hispanics, but its electoral gains have been diminished by the hard-line stance many Republicans have taken on immigration… 5 percent of delegates are Hispanic, the lowest percentage at a Republican convention since 1996 [Link]
McCain’s own campaign manager said:
“We have to make a better case to the Hispanic voter that the Republican Party has something to offer other than a deportation slip,” [Link]
And while I was unable to find any figures on Asians at the Republican convention, the numbers leave little room for Asian delegates unless in very small number.
<
p>
Note that neither party does a good job of representing the American people as they are today. Democrats over represent Blacks and under represent Whites, the Republicans do the opposite. It’s only with Latino delegates that the Democrats come close to parity and the Republicans are far off. These differences may represent differences in party membership overall.
However, when you look ahead, the Democrats do a far better job of representing America of the future:
The Census Bureau reported last month that racial and ethnic minorities will make up a majority of the country’s population by 2042 — almost a decade earlier than what the bureau predicted just four years ago. [Link]
The difference in minority representation in part emerges from a deliberate difference in approach – the Democrats set diversity goals and the Republics let local parties choose whoever the wish:
Nelson Warfield, a Republican consultant, pointed out that Democratic Party rules called for race- and gender-based numerical goals for state delegations, a factor that most likely contributed to the greater minority presence at the Denver event. “The Republicans,” Mr. Warfield said, “trust delegates to represent the interests of all people more than Democrats do with their quotas.” [Link]
However, these differences are not just a product of ideology. Compare the 2008 convention to the more diverse 2000 and 2004 conventions held under the same rules with the same ideology. This year the core of the party is experiencing a nativist reaction and the convention reflects that. Related is the fact that there are few minority Republican elected officials, so the automatic delegates were also very white this year as well.
I’d like to say that the RNC delegates reflect America of yesterday, but that wouldn’t be true – America has never in its history been 93% White, except perhaps on TV. Instead, I think it reflects a certain self-conception within the party today – that real Americans are White Americans. And if that’s the message that they’re sending, it’s one I’m receiving, loud and clear.
all granted, but you are evaluating only one dimension here. obviously the conventions aren’t going to be ideologically representative, but from what i have seen in political science papers the socioeconomic profiles of party delegates are way upscale. even the dems tend to be professionals.
but yeah, the republicans are to a great extent a white party now. if we’re going to get racial balkanization in terms of political parties whites will still be the largest group in 2042. there’s a fair amount of social science data that the more blacks there are in an area of the south the greater the republican vote from whites. just a taste of the future i guess. when everyone is a minority then everyone is fighting for their privilege.
White vs. Left wing?
pure ideological voting is often said to be a “luxury good.” black americans as you know tend to be very pro-government and see the democratic party as a guarantor of their rights as citizens. but they are also more religious and more likely to be creationists than whites, and not necessarily as pro-gay as a 80-95% dem voting group would imply.
You’re right, we’re saw that in the primaries. Obama did well with white voters were there were few blacks. He won states with large numbers of blacks, but did far worse amongst white voters in those states. Still, it’s foolish to alienate Latino voters when whites will be a minority in the future and it’s a two party system.
America has never in its history been 93% White, except perhaps on TV. Instead, I think it reflects a certain self-conception within the party today – that real Americans are White Americans.
well, this is almost certainly true, but that is not likely to be the main predictor for why minorities don’t go republican, right? from what i have read latinos vote like thomas frank wants them to vote; the rich ones vote repub., the less rich dem. since they’re generally less rich, they do dem. there are historical and policy reasons why blacks would align with dems. and asian americans are invested in immigration issues broadly, and brownz are turned off by republican attitudes after 9/11 re: war on terror.
there are substantive reasons why most minorities aren’t going to be attracted to the republican brand aside from the real-america-is-iowa factor.
That social science data is valid for blacks versus whites in the South — I read recently that if the black population is more than 18%, the white population starts becoming increasingly Republican. But it isn’t necessarily true for non-black non-whites. California suggests otherwise.
Anyway, a more interesting question is the extent to which each party’s delegates reflect its supporters? Are 93% of people who vote republican white? Quick googling (CNN exit polls) and some math suggests that 87.5% of 2004 Republican voters were white. Which means that whites are only slightly overrepresented, blacks (2.38%) about right, latinos (6.9%) significantly underrepresented. Asians don’t even exist. They are a figment of Barack Hussein’s imagination.
Running the same figures for democrats in a second, if I have time.
Still, it’s foolish to alienate Latino voters when whites will be a minority in the future and it’s a two party system.
but the future is nearly 2 generations away. the republicans alienated immigrants in 1924, but by the 1950s they started peeling away white ethnics. in any case, what alienates latinos, the immigration rhetoric, right? but when i looked at the data projecting that whites will be a minority in 2042, it was predicated on current immigration trends. change the immigration trends through legislation and republicans don’t have to be so terrified of being the white party.
i think there are two strategies to “win” then. republicans can go along with the democrats in promoting the current immigration status quo, and so eliminate their disadvantage vis-a-vis latinos, who unlike blacks don’t seem to have an allergy to the republican party if the parameters of the debate shift (e.g., rich latinos vote republican a lot more than rich blacks). or, republicans can change the immigration system so that fewer immigrants bolster the numbers. as it is, 2nd and 3rd generation latinos intermarry at high rates so they are plausible future “white ethnics.”
Besides being creationists and anti gay rights, a large majority of blacks also tend to be as rabidly anti amnesty for undocumented immigrants as any minuteman.
At some point in the near future, these issues will compel the Democratic party to say bye bye to the Black or the Hispanic vote blocks.
OK — For dems, Whites are significantly underrepresented as compared to the proportion of white dem voters in 2004 (66%). Blacks are overrepresented (20%), as are Hispanics (8.8%) and Asians (2.3%)
Note also, 57% of dem voters were women — so even at 50% women are getting shafted.
So — why do Democrats hate white women? (The junior senator from New York would like to know.)
Besides being creationists and anti gay rights, a large majority of blacks also tend to be as rabidly anti amnesty for undocumented immigrants as any minuteman.
that’s exaggerated. it isn’t that blacks are raving social conservatives; it’s that the only other group in the dem coalition that votes like them, or close to them, are jews, and they are what you would “expect” in terms of adhering to the social liberalism dominant in the dem party.
At some point in the near future, these issues will compel the Democratic party to say bye bye to the Black or the Hispanic vote blocks.
i doubt this. what do republicans have to give blacks? granted, working class blacks are facing a lot of labor competition from latinos, but the republicans aren’t going to out-democrat the democrats in the welfare state and other social democratic measures.
So — why do Democrats hate white women? (The junior senator from New York would like to know.)
women were the majority of the primary electorate. so the question is “why do women hate women?”
easy way to find data http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/hsda?harcsda+gss06
the variable for race is “RACE.” to filter, 1 = white and 2 = black.
Definitely, the RNC looks like the last stand of the old white wrinklies of both sexes. Amazing to see old women dressed up — in their manner, whatever– and shouting “Boo-oo–oo–oo!” Sarah Palin subscribes to the dress code, of course, with those little suits and teased and coiffed hairnest or basket. Also, it seems to have become at last the party of rednecks, what with Palin’s youngest daughter Piper giving her brother the lickety-spittle treatment. Cindy McCain being the first in her family to go to college fits right in, and after all, the money comes from distributing Budweiser. Another no-class act is no holds barred on juicing 9-11 for all it’s worth, with a video on display, as if it were a party event or showing Cindy McCain with Mother Teresa to juice the America-as-charity-worker angle! All that coded racist language too– “elite” for “uppity” comes to mind first, but there is more….I’ve always found it strange that sexual mores are so closely bound into the RNC platform, so that shortly after we go and bomb the infrastructure of another country’s economy to smithereens, word is that the main concern of the American public is whether gay marriage should be allowed.
So from watching the Dems, it would seem all Democrats have much better hair. I find even the older white Democrats look pretty good, and I mean pretty, like Ted Kennedy or Joe Biden, who is, after all, enjoying the mood Obamanation now, or as the racists will have it,”carrying water” for Obama.
ok, some respondent info from the general social survey…. whites extremely liberal 2.2% liberal 10.3% slight liberal 12.7% moderate 38.8% slight conserv 17.3% conservative 15.7% extrem conserv 3%
blacks extremely liberal 4.9% liberal 16.4% slight liberal 14.6% moderate 37.8% slight conserv 12.3% conservative 10.7% extrem conserv 3.8%
whites strong dem 11.8% not strong dem 20.2% indep-near dem 11.7% independent 14.5% indep-near repub 10% not strong repub 18.9% strong repub 11.4% other party 1.5%
black strong dem 38.5% not strong dem 28.8% indep-near dem 11.2% independent 11.8% indep-near repub 3% not strong repub 3.9% strong repub 1.9% other party 0.8%
all liberals white 77.3% black 17.0% other 5.7%
all conservatives white 86.2% black 9.7% other 4.2%
all dems (includes leaners) white 73.7% black 21.3% other 5%
all repubs (includes leaners) white 93.8% black 3.3% other 2.9%
You know what.. I don’t give a crap.
Most of my elementary school education was given by black teachers. Most of my education from then on was from by white teachers. I don’t bitch and moan that I never had an Indian teacher. It’s all the same to me and I’m grateful to all of them.
I don’t give a f^&* what color my politicians are either. I want the same thing that almost everybody wants – a safe place to live life as I want.
Is this the kind of racial unity the Obamessiah is selling? your party is all white.. then the second someone comes out who is not white.. PROP.. TOKEN…UNCLE TOM. No thanks. I’m not buying.
also, remember that just cuz whites are in a minority, they won’t be a minority of voters. they’re older, and less likely to be immigrants. e.g., 2006 exit polls showed whites were 67% of the electorate in california though they are less than 50% of the population.
Agreed on this, mostly. But the RNC was hardly color blind, nor did it eschew the politics of representation. Palin was held up as an example that the RNC was the party of small town America because it had a candidate from a small town. If that’s their argument, then I’m going to keep drawing inferences from other characteristics of the party.
They can’t have it both ways. Either candidates are chosen purely on their credentials or they’re chosen based on their symbolic value. The RNC has said loud and clear that they believe in the latter, and that’s how I’m analyzing them.
They can’t have it both ways. Either candidates are chosen purely on their credentials or they’re chosen based on their symbolic value. The RNC has said loud and clear that they believe in the latter, and that’s how I’m analyzing them.
agreed.
I would like to see data on what proportion of white Republicans have a college education vs white Democrats. It seems obvious to me that white republicans on average are significantly dumber than white Democrats.
white dems LT HIGH SCHOOL 24.5 HIGH SCHOOL 51.7 JUNIOR COLLEGE 4.4 BACHELOR 12.2 GRADUATE 7.2
white repubs LT HIGH SCHOOL 15.6 HIGH SCHOOL 53.9 JUNIOR COLLEGE 5.6 BACHELOR 18.3 GRADUATE 6.7
from the GSS
I think it’s more apt to view this as the “Multicultural” vs. “The White.” I don’t think you can overlook the fruits of affirmative action and the ethos behind it- Obama and Palin are sort of the Mayawatis of the U.S.
16 脗路 Ennis said
Sorry, but I don’t get this. Palin wasn’t chosen because of her color as far as I know. She is a solid conservative who allows McCain to simultaneously move toward appealing to independents while taking the change mantle by turning it into reform.
And I’m not really sure why playing to small towns is “politics of representation” but Obama’s talk about how much McCain doesn’t get it because of his houses is not. Are you saying non-white folks don’t live in small towns? Are you saying the vast majority of Americans, regardless of race, who live in small towns shouldn’t have representation? This whole argument about how this somehow reflects poorly on the Republicans eludes me.
To add, it is very sad that Democrats have somehow managed to make themselves the party for all minorities, blacks in particular, because despite everyone’s misguided beliefs, the Republicans have long been the party that advocated for equality (slavery, civil rights, affirmative action) and a society that looked at people as individuals, not as members of insert group here.
People throw out comments saying Dems have helped black voters and I really want to know where they have done so. By passing laws that made crack offenses more harshly punished than coke crimes? By building housing projects that have subsequently becomes dens of poverty and drug dealing? By passing welfare laws that required men… fathers to be absent? Democrats run every majority black city, including NOLA, but the blame for Katrina gets put on Bush. And on and on.
Please, point me to even one instance in the past 20-30 years where a Dem got elected and life significantly changed for the better for any racial minority.
white repubs on a vocabulary test, 0 right to 10 right
0 .4 1 1.0 2 1.7 3 4.2 4 8.4 5 14.8 6 22.5 7 18.4 8 13.0 9 9.2 10 6.3
white dems on a vocabulary test, 0 right to 10 right 0 .7 1 1.4 2 2.9 3 5.5 4 9.1 5 16.1 6 21.3 7 16.2 8 10.5 9 9.0 10 7.2
haha, who’s the cracker now??? 馃槈
Hmmm, that does not jibe with Obama’s significantly higher support among the college educated and the higher earners vs the Republicans blue collar white evangelical and catholic support base.
Hmmm, that does not jibe with Obama’s significantly higher support among the college educated and the higher earners vs the Republicans blue collar white evangelical and catholic support base.
most journalists create overly simple narratives. since white catholics voted dem 50 vs. 49 in 2006 are generally a swing vote, not solidly repub like evangelicals, you are either listening to really ignorant people, or, you need to do some data digging and leave your uninformed preconceptions at the door.
Hmmm, that does not jibe with Obama’s significantly higher support among the college educated and the higher earners vs the Republicans blue collar white evangelical and catholic support base.
if you substituted “Republican” for “Hillary’s” you would be totally spot on. but the democratic primary can not be extrapolated to the general election. even in the dem primary there was variation; in the south obama won the poor and churchy because of black support. his appeal to the upper class is in places like vermont and oregon.
white liberals LT HIGH SCHOOL 17.6 HIGH SCHOOL 48.6 JUNIOR COLLEGE 5.4 BACHELOR 17.9 GRADUATE 10.5
white conservatives LT HIGH SCHOOL 16.4 HIGH SCHOOL 52.7 JUNIOR COLLEGE 5.7 BACHELOR 18.0 GRADUATE 7.1
white conservative vocab 0 .3 1 1.0 2 2.0 3 4.6 4 8.5 5 14.6 6 22.0 7 17.5 8 13.2 9 9.3 10 7.0
white liberal vocab 0 .7 1 1.2 2 2.6 3 4.5 4 8.0 5 13.3 6 19.4 7 16.0 8 11.5 9 12.1 10 10.6
to replicate, go here. you want to put WORDSUM or DEGREE into COLUMN. to FILTER RACE(1) = RACE WHITE POLVIEWS(1-3) = LIBERAL POLVIEWS(5-7) = CONSERV PARTYID(0-2) = DEM PARTYID(4-6) = REPUB
you will note that the N’s are large.
Are you saying non-white folks don’t live in small towns?
rural america is mostly white, outside of the south. i have lived in small towns most of my life. that’s how it is. not ALL white; i bring some chocolate love to the game 馃槈 you know wut e-man meant, don’t strawman.
To add, it is very sad that Democrats have somehow managed to make themselves the party for all minorities, blacks in particular, because despite everyone’s misguided beliefs, the Republicans have long been the party that advocated for equality (slavery, civil rights, affirmative action) and a society that looked at people as individuals, not as members of insert group here.
political parties are changing coalitions. e.g., ramesh ponnuru points out that the republican party in the south before 1980 was mostly country club whites who were pro-choice. the dems of the 1960s had a lot of dixiecrats, who are not republicans. the republicans had a lot of liberals jacob javits. that’s why more repubs voted for the 1964 civil rights act. it split on regional, not party, lines. let’s not play these dumb games.
Please, point me to even one instance in the past 20-30 years where a Dem got elected and life significantly changed for the better for any racial minority.
i think it can be argued that the black middle class is built on affirmative action at large corporations and government. look at what repealing affirmative action does at elite universities. this doesn’t entail that a black middle class wouldn’t exist, but it is currently heavily dependent on gov. either through the EEOC’s threats toward large corporations in regards to representation, and, employment in all levels of the public sector.
i was pretty much wrong above re: gov. jobs. 18% of whites work in the public sector vs. 19.5% of blacks according to the GSS. that being said, while 28% of whites with college or grad degrees worked for the gov., 50% of blacks with those quals did. so i think you can see a reason why the black elite might have interests with the party of government and public sector unions.
Do you think they would have chosen her if she wasn’t white with that resume?
In any case, she wasn’t chosen for her accomplishments, she was chosen for her symbolic value. Here’s conservative writer David Frum on Palin:
Note that he is writing for the National Review Online, so he’s a conservative writer publishing in a conservative venue.
Palin was chosen for what she symbolizes rather than for what she has accomplished. The GOP has every right to do that, but it does mean that I’m going to judge them on their other symbolic decisions as well. They’re invoking the politics of representation and identity, so that’s one criterion I use to judge them.
Even if you don’t believe that argument, what about the fact that this year their convention was significantly whiter than years before. That wasn’t an accident, it means something.
The question was about white support exclusively. Why bring blacks into the discussion?
The Republican base is white blue collar evangelical who also happen to be the least educated of white americans. The blue democrat states have higher educational levels than the red republican states. What does that tell you?
Once you get out of the metropolitan areas America is probably close to 93% white and thus largely republican.
Here’s a very useful map of the 2004 election returns by county. Most places aren’t strongly red or blue, but you’re right that urban areas are more democratic and rural ones more republican.
27 脗路 razib said
I don’t see the straw man. Immediately jumping to the conclusion that small town references is an appeal solely to whites seems really disingenuous considering the fact that most Americans don’t live in large cities. Especially in flyover states that typically help the GOP win presidential elections. I don’t think there is anything wrong with pointing out the racial differences in party makeup, but I do think it’s unfair to take every innocuous appeal and try to turn it into some covert racial barb towards minorities.
Parties do change, but that really isn’t the point when people constantly try to say it’s Democrats who have historically been the party for minorities in America. I don’t think either party can really stand up to that argument, but I give credit to Republicans where credit is due. And If we are going to acknowledge that parties change, people should focus on recent party platforms, in which case the Democrats still have a relatively thin record on actually making real policy change that favors minority groups, especially for blacks.
You mention Aff. Act. as one good thing, and I’ll concede the fact that the initial purpose was a great boon for blacks (even though you still don’t seem to want to give any credit to Nixon for laying some of the initial groundwork). I’d argue more against the idea that A.A. continues to be a great help, but that’s another thread for another day.
No, most Americans live in suburbs. Have you spent much time in a small town? If you have, you’ll know what people mean when they say “people like us who are from small towns”
Maybe this says just as much about the peer pressure that minorities face to ‘conform’ with the ‘community’ that belongs to the Democrat Party. It’s very complicated, as others have mentioned.. no single reason why whites are the majority in Republican Party, other than the fact that mostly it’s an issue of world view and culture. Republicans see themselves as guardians of traditional family values, whereas Democrats see themselves pushing everything ‘liberal and progressive’.. culture war. Republicans are trying to maintain an America largely lost to changing demographics and the impact on pop culture raising kids instead of traditional values.. it’s also the ‘rural vs. metro’ dynamic, but seems you’re saying the Republican Party is racist.. you could say the same for Democrat Party, as being ‘anti-White’.
The reason you dont see too many blacks in rural areas is because they were cheated out of the promise of “40 acres and a mule” after the end of slavery. Instead, the anglo elite brought in immigrants from northern europe who they considered the closest to themselves in racial stock, germans and scandinavians, to cultivate the vast acreage of America. You dont see too many greeks, italians etc either in rural areas.
35 脗路 karakara said
hey, even ken mehlman agrees.
34 脗路 Ennis said
35 脗路 karakara said
You know karakara, that’s the most evenhanded comment I’ve seen here in the past few days. It’s ironic to see people on this very thread jump straight to allegations of racism while simultaneously wondering why the Republican party doesn’t include more minorities. Right or wrong, it is really hard to reach out to people who assume your party affiliation means you secretly belong to stormfront or the aryan brotherhood or whatever. If the first instinct of minorities is to call white republicans racists it doesn’t leave much room for dialogue. I can only do it because my ethnic background makes me unafraid of racial charges, and even that took some time.
Instead of looking that the GOP platform and wondering why it may not have broader appeal, people commenting in this thread have gone straight to calling white republicans “crackers” who are uneducated, vicious Christians. People freely mock creationist views, but would undoubtedly be P.O.’d if GOP members openly mocked the quaint beliefs of Hindu and Muslim parents and grandparents.
And if you look at the core beliefs of conservatism (which the GOP is largely founded on), none of the tenets are overtly or covertly racial. Belief in the power of the individual to help themselves, belief that the government should be blind to race (I know of no conservative that says you can’t keep up your cultural practices at home), belief in the sanctity of life, acknowledging the value of traditional families that aren’t quick to divorce, etc. etc. There are bad apples in every bunch, but my experiences with conservatives and republicans has been overall very pleasant and it sucks that so many here are quick to give people like them a bad name.
I don’t think the Republicans, even as craven as they are, set out to mount a 93% white convention. It just turned out that way because they don’t really care about the issue, except as a political prop–and in this case, it wasn’t necessary. Obama is the black guy, so why confuse the voters? Loyalty and conservative bona fides are all that matter. John Yoo (torture memos). Albert Gonzales (Bush’s personal lawyer), Condi Rice (lightweight), Colin Powell (loyal soldier) — to cite some non-white senior Bush administration officials — prove the point.
38 脗路 NotADemocrat said
what can we say? we are the hollywood angry left who would rather win an election than win a war.
But Preston, that’s why the difference between the last two elections (2000 and 2004) and this one is instructive. Bush / Rove reached out to minority voters, McCain does not seem to be doing so. Why is this? Well, they’ve given up on the black vote for this round and with immigration being such a hot button issue (a) there are fewer Latino Republican activists and (b) they didn’t want to put them in prominent roles and remind the base of McCain’s support for immigration reform.
I think that if McCain wins, his administration will be considerably whiter than Bush’s.
Ennis – you are way off base here. Small towns refers to small town values, etc., patriotism, hard-work, ‘I’m as good as you fancy educated lawyer guy’. Classic populism.
*I guess if all you have is a hammer…..
**What genius in the Obama campaign thought it was a good idea to bring up the red-blue divide by making fun of Gov. Palin as a small town mayor? Sheesh, send out smarter surrogates in the future.
More on that here:
43 脗路 Vikram said
boy, it must be agonizing for somebody with such moral integrity to split with the repubs.
Creationism isn’t just a private belief, but something which is being taught in schools as equivalent to evolution. Do you think that should be so?
Not overtly, no. There are prominent conservatives of all races. However, they are culturally biased. According to John McCain, America was founded as a Christian nation and the President should be a Christian:
And many conservatives think that while Christianity should have an official role, no other religion should:
Beyond that, there are plenty of issues which are not in the ideology but in the practice of politics. Plenty of blacks are very conservative Christians, but will not vote Republican as long as the GOP keeps playing nasty racial politics. For example, recently a GOP congressman called Michelle and Barack “uppity” and when asked to confirm if he meant that, said he did.
I agree, Ennis. It’s also the case that Republicanism as McCain/Palin 2008 presents it has now been reduced to a few simple memes. Sarah Palin is little more than a Fox News talking head — Laura Ingraham, with a little Harriet Miers thrown in for good measure. McCain himself, despite whatever personal and political courage he might have once displayed, has withered into a crusty angry shell. There just isn’t space for anything beyond resentment and aggression, which requires enemies. And enemies are brown.
MD – The small town == white thing is a digression. What do you think of the point made in the post overall, that this is the whitest RNC in decades, whiter than the population as a whole by far.
The Republican base is white blue collar evangelical who also happen to be the least educated of white americans. The blue democrat states have higher educational levels than the red republican states. What does that tell you?
not as much as actually looking at the independent variables themselves. perhaps you just aren’t bright, so let me make it clear for you
state blue – 60% dem and 40% repub state red – 60% repub and 40% dem
state blue – 25% college grad state red – 15% college grad
just because the more dem state is more well educated does not entail that dems are more well educated. do you see why? if you don’t, you do something like read a book, for example: Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State: Why Americans Vote the Way They Do, which shows interesting patterns.
34 脗路 Ennis said
building on razib’s point, these culture war buzzwords/phrases seem to resonate more according to wealth and less according to education. Once white households make it to over $50K, McCain sounds like a good deal, under $50K, more like Obama. Non-college whites making over $100k are for McCain by whopping 62%-32%.
42 脗路 MD said
Who lives in small towns? I think that would settle the truth-claim here.