The Democrats really do have the simplest model. At the top, controlling the party's activities, are the highly educated. We'll analyze this group first, before moving on to the rest of the coalition. According to the 2012 census, only 10.9% of Americans, mostly Asian and white-only, have earned graduate degrees. Asians earned the most graduate degrees, at nearly 21.5%. Wow! Only 8.2% of blacks earned graduate degrees, and only 4.7% of Hispanics. The bottom line is, when you hear about the electorate with advanced degrees, just know they're mostly Asian and white. What makes this group liberal? Why do the majority vote Democrat? The answer is simple. The driving philosophy in education is Naturalism. Naturalism is opposite religious. So, the more education you receive, the more likely you are to subscribe to Naturalism. In other words, the more likely you are to be a heathen. Heathen is my choice of a word to describe atheists and agnostics. You can substitute. Another dominant driving philosophy in education is Marxism. For Marxism to survive, you definitely need more heathens. So, to summarize, at the top of the Democratic party are Marxists and heathens. These are the people who gave us "safe spaces" and who desire for grown men dressed like women to pee in the same restroom as your daughters. The rest of the Democratic coalition are the least educated among us Americans. They are mostly single moms and poor minorities. White union members used to be part of that coalition, but the party has long-since traded their loyalty for the new voter base, the poor and uneducated Hispanics. Can we begin to put two and two together? Is it that difficult to understand how the Democrats increase their power? Secondly, should you really be impressed or intimidated by the fact that people with higher degrees vote Democrat, knowing the philosophy behind their education?
I don't see how low educated people gathering in churches with stained glass windows and huge organs are any better than highly educated heathens such as myself.
Your mythical demographics are incorrect. Low educated people (which I will define as no college degree) actually are less religious than those with postgraduate education. http://www.gallup.com/poll/7729/does-more-educated-really-less-religious.aspx
Of course you don't. You think very highly of yourself. Doesn't make it true, though. I am highly educated, but I find often working class people to be more congenial companions than educated professionals. They have an aura of authenticity that educated people often lack. Trump has that same aura. The working class responded to that and voted for him. Hillary feels like a phony. And no doubt she is.
In addition to OP, half of all teachers attain grad degrees to get lockstep pay increases. Same applies to gov workers. Private sector workers are not generally paid more for getting any old degree in any old thing from any old where. Gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex denizens are, and taxpayers pay for it. As far as the effect on their competence from this taxpayer funded largesse? NADA https://www.brookings.edu/research/who-profits-from-the-masters-degree-pay-bump-for-teachers/ Teachers vote overwhelmingly Left because 1. The largest union in the country, the NEA tells them to daily, and 2. Most teachers are women, far more likely to sacrifice freedom for the illusion of security than men are. Here's an anecdote from my county. Over the last ten years, our county of about 100k has been seeded with 10-20k of illegal Mexican immigrants and legal ME "refugees" as an overt method of changing a red voting county blue. The overburden on our school system due to these "special needs" of non English speakers has resulted in massive hiring and growth in the schools, requiring more bureaucrats at the school board to manage, giving more teachers a way to advance into cushy, do-nothing school bureaucracy. So do the f-ing math as to why teachers vote Democrat, it's mostly $$ not just cultural or predisposition. If they were ever HONEST, any of the Complex denizens, and simply admitted, "I vote Democrat out of self-interest, to get more pay, more advancement, more Complex growth, more govjobs for my family, more govcontracts, more grants, more revenue for advertisers who thrive on redistribution, more plaintiff verdicts, bigger checks in the mail from the gov, more "free stuff" I'd have more respect for them. They are anything but honest though, and conceal their obvious self-interest in more $$ for themselves, their family and friends (most public sector people tend to have public sector friends and families, the disinformation, and ignorance of the actual commercial world breeds that way) beneath the most feeble rationalizations, ideals and fabrications imaginable. I've never seen any one of them, not one, here, elsewhere on the net, IRL, fess up and admit why they vote as they do in real, honest terms. Not once. Would be refreshing if one ever did.
There's a tremendous flaw in the report. First, virtually every other indicator of religion's role in people's lives clearly show the higher educated are less religious than the lower educated. The ONLY factor this report considers, and dares to assert it trumps the data showing the less educated are more likely to say religion is important or very important in their lives, is church membership. Affluent people are church members because it is part of their social status and family traditions.
My grandkids are in college. And hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the economics depts. are not teaching Marxism, but Friedman's neoliberal economics, capitalism that is no longer satisfied with reasonable profits which provide for environmental and social responsibility, but a form which has only one goal, to max out profits even if it destroys the environment and the societies in which they operate. Both parties are filled with neoliberals, not Marxists. So your bias is corrupting your thinking. One of our problems lies with the fact that a democratic republic can only operate effectively, rationally, even morally when the voters have sufficient IQs. And although it is not politically correct or perhaps a good idea to notice how different groups of people seem to be genetically inclined to IQ level, we are being slowly demographically turned from the higher IQ population into the lower IQ population. Generally the IQ averages run from 85 for black, then come the hispancs, then the European stock, then the Asians, and finally particular genetic line of Jews. The more you have of the lower average IQ people, the greater the threat to the democratic republic the European stock created here in America. For our republic can only work properly with higher IQ people who are informed to the facts. This is not to say of course that all black fall within the 85 average, for some are well above that. Nor does it say that all of the Asians fall into their average IQ, as some are below the average. But it does say there is a difference in IQs in different groups in the averages. This might also in part explain poverty within certain groups. Yet how many people have you known with higher IQs that couldn't tie their shoes? I have known a few of those in my long life. And how many people have you known with lower IQs that were successful when they could get paid a living wage for essential work done to keep society running smoothly? I have known many of those people too. But when it comes to voting for the right leaders, IQ does play a very important role. So, the democrats for years have exploited low IQ voters, very cleverly, while not representing these people at all. And the GOP have done the same with low IQ voters, and not representing them at all. But these voters woke up and saw the GOP was not representing their best economic interests with open borders free trade for their elites, and voted for change, for trump. And yet the blacks were cleverly played again and they voted against their own best self interests by voting for Clinton, along with the Hispanics. Of course one can understand why Hispanics who were here illegally would supporter Clinton, and be against trump, so they were voting in their own self interests, for they wanted the laws to not apply to them.
My business degree only has about ten years of dust on it. Corporate responsibility was at the core of the curriculum then, and it is now. Colleges aren't teaching how to be profitable in business. I wish they were. The lack of any sales degrees is a perfect example.
