Down With Fancy Book Learnin'

[NeoV]

All of you right wingers can chime in with "see, that's why we call the Dem's the 'arrogant elitists'", but you have yet to refute the main point of the article.

It is FACT that rural America voted overwhelmingly for Bush.

It is FACT that people with a college degree voted for Kerry far more often than Bush.

Yes, this trend is nothing new, but how do you explain it, or justify it, or, better yet, be proud of it?

 

[Genx87]

/yawn

The dribble coming from the left is getting so worn out and boring. I cant even bother to read more than a few lines of it.

Same story, different write.

Red states = hicks who dont have culture, good food, sex, and are low class.
Blue States = Culturally diverse, well educated, and high society.

Funny considering a state like ND has the highest per capita millionaires But lets not get into that!

Personally after living in a blue and red state. Growing up in a metropolitan area like Minneapolis and a smaller city like Fargo ND. Ill take the clean air, friendlier, more down to earth Fargo 9 out of 10 times.

Once you get past a certain age and start looking at life beyond a giant party. Red states like ND actually present a good opportunity for a good life. Who cares about the bar scene, culture, or high society? I can live in peace with a non-existent crime rate and low-ass taxes in ND.

If I want to see cultual diversity. I can goto Moorehead MN across the river where the Mexican population is rather large due to all the farming in the area.

I give the guys rant a C-. He just didnt put all he could into it.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: NeoV
All of you right wingers can chime in with "see, that's why we call the Dem's the 'arrogant elitists'", but you have yet to refute the main point of the article.

It is FACT that rural America voted overwhelmingly for Bush.

It is FACT that people with a college degree voted for Kerry far more often than Bush.

Yes, this trend is nothing new, but how do you explain it, or justify it, or, better yet, be proud of it?

So rural America is supposed to bow down to someone with a BA in Art History that works as a manager @ McDonalds?

BTW, it just pisses me off that I see America used to describe the US.

We are not America, America is a continent, not a country.

Now apologize to the rest of the continent or you're going to the principal's office...

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: NeoV
All of you right wingers can chime in with "see, that's why we call the Dem's the 'arrogant elitists'", but you have yet to refute the main point of the article.

It is FACT that rural America voted overwhelmingly for Bush.

And it's a fact that the ignorant inner-city poor voted overwhelmingly for Kerry.

It is FACT that people with a college degree voted for Kerry far more often than Bush.

Actually, people with a college degree overall voted more for Bush, not Kerry. Only the elitist of the college elite (those with post-graduate degrees and probably the uni-lifer type) are the ones voted for Kerry more than Bush.

Yes, this trend is nothing new, but how do you explain it, or justify it, or, better yet, be proud of it?

How do you explain being so smart and not getting your facts correct?

 

[Genx87]

All of you right wingers can chime in with "see, that's why we call the Dem's the 'arrogant elitists'", but you have yet to refute the main point of the article.

Oh I thought the main point of the article was the blue cities all have sex, cultural diversity, education systems, and above all high scociety!

btw wanna bet who has better graduation rates between the city of minneapolis(blue) and its suburbs(red)????

It is FACT that rural America voted overwhelmingly for Bush.

Many of the key states were rather close.

It is FACT that people with a college degree voted for Kerry far more often than Bush.

Conjecture

Yes, this trend is nothing new, but how do you explain it, or justify it, or, better yet, be proud of it?

It is hard to argue against conjecture.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
It tells me that people with rich parents who pay for their schooling are used to getting handouts and would like to keep it that way. Further, it's a lot easier to hold the liberal viewpoint when you're not concerned with making money to keep yourself alive.

As for being socially liberal, it's been my experience that it's because 99% of the kids in college haven't thought twice about these issues. Since they're in college and financially liberal for the aforementioned reasons, they just go along with all liberal points of view.

hahahah whatever.

Come back when you have a clue.

That would be an awesome day, but I don't see it happening.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Funny considering a state like ND has the highest per capita millionaires But lets not get into that!

in fairness, the population of ND is, like, 5

 

[Taejin]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
High population density creates brains that function at a much more sophisticated level of social interaction and require a constantly expanding tool set. Socialism is a natural development of socialization. Democracy is a function of socialism and socialization and the progressive needs they foster. High population exposure requires adaptability and low population density requires and promotes conformity to existing norms. We have dynamism in population centers and stasis where populations are thin. When dynamism is thrust on people in stasis they rebel because they don't sense or have any need to evolve and they don't have the neural net to comprehend or keep up. They are basically clueless as to what is going on.

Pwned.

 

[isasir]

Originally posted by: Taejin

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
High population density creates brains that function at a much more sophisticated level of social interaction and require a constantly expanding tool set. Socialism is a natural development of socialization. Democracy is a function of socialism and socialization and the progressive needs they foster. High population exposure requires adaptability and low population density requires and promotes conformity to existing norms. We have dynamism in population centers and stasis where populations are thin. When dynamism is thrust on people in stasis they rebel because they don't sense or have any need to evolve and they don't have the neural net to comprehend or keep up. They are basically clueless as to what is going on.

Pwned.

Who moved my cheese?

 

[Genx87]

in fairness, the population of ND is, like, 5

hehe true but... in all fairness when people yap about Blue states supporting red states this is never brought up. The top two states to get federal aid from the govt in total outlays are California and New York. Both very blue

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
High population density creates brains that function at a much more sophisticated level of social interaction and require a constantly expanding tool set. Socialism is a natural development of socialization. Democracy is a function of socialism and socialization and the progressive needs they foster. High population exposure requires adaptability and low population density requires and promotes conformity to existing norms. We have dynamism in population centers and stasis where populations are thin. When dynamism is thrust on people in stasis they rebel because they don't sense or have any need to evolve and they don't have the neural net to comprehend or keep up. They are basically clueless as to what is going on.

So people that know how to bump in line @ Best Buy are smarter than the folks that can change a flat tire.

Moonie, I grew up in a culturally isolated red state, don't know how to tell you, but they have teh internets, TV, phones & everything now, they're watching (OMFG) Will & Grace...

Where do you think the people in the population centers came from?

The answer is much more dynamic & complicated (and less culturally biased) than the one you present, further, if you look @ demographics about who voted, the picture becomes much less clear.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

the problem that I see is that most people from urban/metropolitan areas have know idea what a rural/conservative area is really like, and vice-versa. Thus we have the two perpuating stereotypes from both sides.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Genx87

in fairness, the population of ND is, like, 5

hehe true but... in all fairness when people yap about Blue states supporting red states this is never brought up. The top two states to get federal aid from the govt in total outlays are California and New York. Both very blue

Can't speak for New York, but you're wrong about California. California gets 70 cents on the dollar back from federal taxes.

 

[Steeplerot]

You can tell when they read something that makes em mad they start screaming elitest. Their new word for anyone who disagrees.

 

[NeoV]

Gee Pliable....I used "America" instead of saying The United States of America - you really got me on that one...good thing you are here to set us on the right path..idiot...North America is the name of the continent, and the word America is also in the formal name of our country...so if I just refer to it as "America", try to follow along.....I suppose "America the Beautiful" pisses you off too, or is that song about Mexico as well?

I'd also like to point out that to Pliable, people with a degree are apparently working the counters at Best Buy or McDonalds...umm...ok..you really should get out more....and before you ask, do you really need a link to stats that show how people's income is directly related to their level of education?

Yes, generally people with a degree are smarter than your average auto mechanic. I'm certain there are a ton of exceptions, but I think as a general rule it's a safe statement.

Again, people misunderstand the blue vs red areas. Yes, downtown Minneaoplis is blue, but so is a very large area around the city - the area that most of the people who work in the city live in. The same is true in nearly every major city. Here in Cleveland the right shouts about the minority, inner city vote in Cleveland, when Cuyahoga county is mainly a non-minority county. We aren't talking about the cities themselves where the big buildings are - it's the suburbs around the big cities as well.

I'm still waiting for someone on the right (oops, not you Tastes, you are a liberal, remember?.. and I'm Batman) to explain what is good about a voting base that is less educated. This isn't about being 'elite', it's about raw numbers and statistics. You can talk about people living closer together being 'more easily brainwashed', but in fact the church-going vote was apparently far more effective in mobilizing people to vote as a collective group..so you tell me who was brainwashed?

Wasn't it Karl Rove who called higher education a "dangerous thing" for voters? I'm not making this stuff up.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
You can tell when they read something that makes em mad they start screaming elitest. Their new word for anyone who disagrees.

Heh, we had a meeting, we're making "Steeplerot" a pejorative term.

 

[Genx87]

Can't speak for New York, but you're wrong about California. California gets 70 cents on the dollar back from federal taxes.

Reread what I said.

I said in "total" outlays. Not in % per capita.

 

[Genx87]

Again, people misunderstand the blue vs red areas. Yes, downtown Minneaoplis is blue, but so is a very large area around the city - the area that most of the people who work in the city live in. The same is true in nearly every major city. Here in Cleveland the right shouts about the minority, inner city vote in Cleveland, when Cuyahoga county is mainly a non-minority county. We aren't talking about the cities themselves where the big buildings are - it's the suburbs around the big cities as well.

I havent seen a breakdown of the precints in the Minneapolis area. But something tells me the city itself and maybe the first ring suburbs are Blue. After that you get into the middle and outer tier suburbs which are red and have very high graduation rates compared to the inner city and 1st ring suburbs.

If you look at the population of Minneapolis and the 1st ring suburbs compared to the rest. It doesnt surprise me at all Hennepin county went for Kerry. It is the largest county in the state with about 1.5 million people. Ramsey county being St. Paul probably looks awfully similar to Minneapolis and consists of probably 1 million people total.

Ill try to get some data on the precints and see how they correlate to graduation rates. It would be an interesting thing to compare IMO.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: NeoV
And tastes, you are wrong about people with a college 4 year degree - they voted for Kerry more than Bush, the gap only widens as you add education.

Untrue.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/20.../US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Those with a 4 year degree voted 52% Bush / 46% Kerry. The only win for Kerry was among the post-grads and those who never graduated high school at all, which is quite a strange mix.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: NeoV
And tastes, you are wrong about people with a college 4 year degree - they voted for Kerry more than Bush, the gap only widens as you add education.

Untrue.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/20.../US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Those with a 4 year degree voted 52% Bush / 46% Kerry. The only win for Kerry was among the post-grads and those who never graduated high school at all, which is quite a strange mix.

pwned

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Can't speak for New York, but you're wrong about California. California gets 70 cents on the dollar back from federal taxes.

Reread what I said.

I said in "total" outlays. Not in % per capita.

Exactly. total outlays is a is misleading statistic here. California may be "getting" more money than any other state, but if its "giving" far more than that to the federal gov to begin with. Saying that it leads in total outlays is misleading. I'm not making a case that red states don't pull their weight and shouldn't get money. We redistribute wealth to the red states because it makes the country stronger as a whole. I'm happy to help the red states. I grew up in one. But your stat was misleading and you were implying something that's not true. (that new york and california leach more money off the federal government than blue states)

 

[NeoV]

it doesn't say 4 year degree...I wonder if the 2 vs 4 split makes any difference, but I agree with you (?!) that the mix in that poll is very strange in a number of categories, not just education

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: NeoV
And tastes, you are wrong about people with a college 4 year degree - they voted for Kerry more than Bush, the gap only widens as you add education.

Untrue.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/20.../US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Those with a 4 year degree voted 52% Bush / 46% Kerry. The only win for Kerry was among the post-grads and those who never graduated high school at all, which is quite a strange mix.

He meant just US citizens, I'm sure if you look up the stats for who voted in "America" that college grads all voted for Kerry...

 

[Genx87]

Exactly. total outlays is a is misleading statistic here. California may be "getting" more money than any other state, but if its "giving" far more than that to the federal gov to begin with. Saying that it leads in total outlays is misleading. I'm not making a case that red states don't pull their weight and shouldn't get money. We redistribute wealth to the red states because it makes the country stronger as a whole. I'm happy to help the red states. I grew up in one. But your stat was misleading and you were implying something that's not true. (that new york and california leach more money off the federal government than blue states)

You need to read the entire thread to get the context of my point.
Saying it leads in total outlays is not misleading at all. They get the most amount of money from the federal govt period. That is not disputeable.

Ill save you the time since you probably wont bother reading the entire thread again.

I brought up the point about ND having the highest per capita millionaires in the country. Loki came back with a point about ND having a population of 7. The point being ND has a small population so a few millionaires makes a huge difference in the per capita. But when you look at it the total amount is much less than a California.

I then switched gears and talked about how it is the same as when people talk about per capita spending by the federal govt on states like ND. Sure they spend more per person per tax dollar than California. But does it matter with a population as small as ND?!?!?!?!?!? My example is California who gets a lot more in total outlays than a state like ND.

It is like complaining about a 3 cent gas hike when your car gets 50 miles to the gallon. Who cares when it barely hits you where it counts. In the pocket book. Now if you have a V12 truck that sucks down 30 gallows a day. It will be seen right where it hurts. In your bottom line.

I can get the data a state like ND recieves in federal aid. It is really quite small in total outlays compared to a state like California. So while it may be more than a state like ND puts in. The amount they get out isnt something to write home about.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: NeoV
it doesn't say 4 year degree...I wonder if the 2 vs 4 split makes any difference, but I agree with you (?!) that the mix in that poll is very strange in a number of categories, not just education

True. Some of that percentage under "college degree" could be Associate degrees. Some of those with "some college" could have 3-1/2 years or more under their belt and simply haven't graduated yet as well. I'm going to check to see if there's anywhere that has a more detailed breakdown of those stats.