Coincidence?

[iago]

We don't have enough political arguments here, so let's get one going! :)

[dark_drake]

There's a lot of interesting data on that website. Thanks for sharing.

[Sidoh]

Interesting.  It's probably not a coincidence, but I'm not sure graduating from a university is a very strong indicator of anything really meaningful.

[Newby]

Interesting.  It's probably not a coincidence, but I'm not sure graduating from a university is a very strong indicator of anything really meaningful.

What fraction of graduated college alumni stayed in the same state they graduated from? A lot move away for work. Something also to consider in addition to the plethora of additional factors that make iago's original post an obvious attempt to start a flame war, given that the subject is politics. How often does something about politics stay well-mannered here? :p

[AntiVirus]

How often does something about politics stay well-mannered here? :p

Always? :P

@iago:
That's just silliness.  I haven't looked at the link, but do they provide percent unemployment per state there?

[Edit]
Looks like they do:
http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?measure=68

[Edit #2]
http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?measure=43 (Poverty)

Very interesting site iago.  Wish they had more up-to-date information, though.

[MyndFyre]

This is bound to spark controversy....

I've been giving some real thought to advocating against so much emphasis on higher education.  On a national level, four-year degrees are now pretty worthless, and they're becoming more and more expensive.  Most people go to college to avoid having to go into the production sector; but as we've seen, China is the predominant power house because they're benefiting from the supply-side economics situation.  If we stopped placing such high value on higher education, and insisting that everyone goes, then we'd stop wasting that money, pushing people in debt, and raising the cost of higher education as fast as we are.  In doing so, more people would trend towards production work, which should decrease prices for us overall.

I certainly don't bregrudge anyone trying to improve their lots in life.  God knows I've worked hard to do it for myself, too.  But everyone here likely knows someone who shouldn't have gone to college.

I don't know if anyone else here took political science at uni, but as someone who attempted to get into the Poli Sci graduate program (turned down because I had too busy of a schedule to try to pull it off in five years), but the academic programs are overwhelmingly liberal-leaning, from the journals and professors.  My thesis director was relatively not liberal, but as one professor out of about 20 in the department, that doesn't speak very much to the bias.  Now, you can certainly try to use this as evidence (similarly to the implication of your original post) that the "smarter" people are liberal-leaning.  Another thought is that conservative-leaning people don't want to have to make the effort and always be looked-down-upon in a community that is overwhelmingly organized and leaning against them.

[CrAz3D]

So what we can learn from all these maps is that republicans arent college graduates, but they also dont waste their money/have jobs.

[nslay]

Both political parties are two sides of the same coin even though one side has Latin written on it.

Forget about college education. The college educated and non-college educated elected two of the WORST presidents in recent history, back-to-back. Both held office during hard times and both sucked at it. I don't think college education implies leadership skills or expertise in leadership skills and recent history is evidence of that.

I hate political parties and what they stand for. They do not represent my interest or the public's interest. They only represent themselves, their team, and their ideals (whether these ideals actually work or not!). They are simplistic manifestations of two extreme points of view.

Political parties are destroying our nation. Maybe there will be a day when we'll hold anyone in contempt for trying to form idealistic interest groups that dominate politics!

[CrAz3D]

It's more basic than that. Political parties are now run by special interest groups (i.e., all corporations of some sort). The majority of either major party is backed by corporations.


/Gary Johnson 2012

[Rule]

I don't think that the two points of view are actually that different from one another either...  in a global context, the Democrats are not even centrists, they are right wing.

[MyndFyre]

I don't think that the two points of view are actually that different from one another either...  in a global context, the Democrats are not even centrists, they are right wing.

If the democrats are "right wing," then left- and right-wing are very inadequate terms to discuss political leanings.

What conservative Americans need to focus on, in order to make their points relevant again, is the idea of a weaker centralized government.  If limitations on a federal government, or world government, make someone "right wing" on the basis that it makes them more nationalist, okay. 

But I'm not really sure what you mean by "right wing."  The current crop of democrats are, from my perspective, about as left wing as I can stand to tolerate, and many of the republicans are as well.  So much of what has transpired in the last decade of American politics are loathsome to me. 

[nslay]

I don't think that the two points of view are actually that different from one another either...  in a global context, the Democrats are not even centrists, they are right wing.

Their points of view are different enough that compromise is a fight. These guys seem to think in black and white without even understanding the shortcomings of their particular way of thinking and completely neglecting evidence.

[nslay]

I don't think that the two points of view are actually that different from one another either...  in a global context, the Democrats are not even centrists, they are right wing.

What conservative Americans need to focus on, in order to make their points relevant again, is the idea of a weaker centralized government.  If limitations on a federal government, or world government, make someone "right wing" on the basis that it makes them more nationalist, okay. 

Or just maybe they should recognize when and where it is appropriate to limit government rather than ruthlessly try to limit it every which way. But then they wouldn't be "conservative" anymore. Labels seem to correlate to religion-like and it's precisely this that I hate about both political parties.

[Rule]

But I'm not really sure what you mean by "right wing."  The current crop of democrats are, from my perspective, about as left wing as I can stand to tolerate, and many of the republicans are as well.  So much of what has transpired in the last decade of American politics are loathsome to me.  

By 'right wing' I mean conservative.  The Democrats are both more socially and fiscally conservative than most political parties elsewhere in the world.  Where they are not fiscally/socially conservative, they are neo-conservative -- e.g. in favour of pre-emptive war, etc.  In most countries, the 'Democrat' party is 'to the right' of the local 'Conservative' party.  In other words, the 'Conservative' parties in those countries (Canada and the UK to name just two examples) would probably consider the Democrats 'too' conservative, on the basis of their positions on healthcare, education, taxes, the poor, etc.