Dems as the party of the educated?

[SingingAnalyst]

In every general election since 1980, the Democrats have won a near-majority (and beginning in 1996, an absolute majority) of the votes of those with some postgraduate education. In 2008, Obama won 61% of this group. Clinton seems on hand to win at least 60% of this group, even if it's a 3-person race.

So far, Clinton has crushed Sanders among voters with postgraduate education in every state except VT, even in states where she loses overall.

This trend can be extended to wealth: In 2013, McAuliffe(D) was elected VA gov with 48% of the vote--and 55% of the vote of those earning $200K+/year.

Are Dems becoming the party of the educated and/or the wealthy? Will the narrative that the GOP is the party of "the rich" end soon?

[Virginiá]

Will the narrative that the GOP is the party of "the rich" end soon?

I guess it depends how you look at things. Democrats have been fighting for workers for a century now, with periods of pro-business overlap. Republicans have seemingly always maintained a pro-business agenda and right now, their platform of deregulation and lower taxes attracts a lot of the people people associate with being 'evil billionaires and corporations'. There is little sign of this changing anytime soon. Their perception as the party of the rich is set for at least a generation or more.

However, being a 'party of the rich' is irrelevant, I think. What matters is how that party uses it's power. If Democrats pursued the same agenda they have now and had a much more significant number of wealthy voters / pro-business backing, then I'd be fine with that, because their agenda is still very fair and progressive. Select groups of wealthy people/corporations using the GOP as a vehicle to turn America into a poverty-stricken corporatocracy wasteland where only the wealthy benefit is one of the major unappealing aspects of the Republican party in this regard. So it's not all wealthy people and corporations, it's just specific ones, and they align with the GOP.

I see little chance of the Democratic platform changing in a bad way anytime soon, given how the country has been moving left for over a decade now.

[Blue3]

You can be well-educated and not wealthy. Think teachers, nonprofit managers, local/state agency managers and officials, social workers, etc.

There's also a lot of rich people who don't mind some more taxes and social welfare programs.

There's even a lot of business owners who wish the U.S. government did do single-payer, because it would be relief from a huge burden on businesses.

[RINO Tom]

It depends on how you define "educated," which you clearly prefer as postgraduate education (which is but one measure).  If you are an educated, well-off adult who works in the finance community (a field that skews Republican), you are a heck of a lot less likely to have needed postgrad education to get there than a college professor (who makes considerably less in a field that is dominated by Democrats), who literally needs a postgraduate degree to work in that field.

Let's stop pretending like the fact that Democrats win postgraduates has to do with them being just SO much more enlightened; it has at least as much to do with 1) more people have those degrees than had them in the era where the GOP was winning the group and 2) fields that already are more likely to include mostly Democratic voters require them a lot more than those that include mostly Republican voters.

As for the wealthy, it will literally never happen.  This forum is very fond of saying the lifeblood of the GOP isn't the business community or wealthy suburbanites but rather the "God, guns and gays" crowd ... well, the lifeblood of the Democratic Party is poor people who feel they need the Democratic Party to keep their life together.  It has been that way, in one form or the other, for a very, very long time, at least in the North.

[Bismarck]

It depends on how you define "educated," which you clearly prefer as postgraduate education (which is but one measure).  If you are an educated, well-off adult who works in the finance community (a field that skews Republican), you are a heck of a lot less likely to have needed postgrad education to get there than a college professor (who makes considerably less in a field that is dominated by Democrats), who literally needs a postgraduate degree to work in that field.

Let's stop pretending like the fact that Democrats win postgraduates has to do with them being just SO much more enlightened; it has at least as much to do with 1) more people have those degrees than had them in the era where the GOP was winning the group and 2) fields that already are more likely to include mostly Democratic voters require them a lot more than those that include mostly Republican voters.

As for the wealthy, it will literally never happen.  This forum is very fond of saying the lifeblood of the GOP isn't the business community or wealthy suburbanites but rather the "God, guns and gays" crowd ... well, the lifeblood of the Democratic Party is poor people who feel they need the Democratic Party to keep their life together.  It has been that way, in one form or the other, for a very, very long time, at least in the North.

Amen. That's the problem with Trump, he reinforces the false stereotype of republicans being the party of uneducated Hicks. Glad to see somebody else feels this way along with Rockefeller GOP and myself.

[James Bond 007]

Democrats are more the party of the educated and elite based on how people vote. Them saying the opposite doesn't change things.  Your question again is very loaded though.  What does it mean to be educated?  In fact, Trump's comment about the "poorly educated" was meant for this purpose.  He is cleverly setting up his opponents to attack him so that he can bounce back and accuse them of being elitist and out of touch with middle America.  People don't like elitists and we're plenty capable of taking care of ourselves.  This election, I'm voting to tell the elitists to take their "free stuff" and in the words of Democrat Theresa Heinz, "shove it." 

[sg0508]

This is one question I never understood. 

1) Better educated usually has a direct correlation with household income. 
2) Now we're saying those that are better educated are more likely than not to be Democratic.
3) Richer people (normally more-educated) tend to vote GOP.
4) We associate ignorant, uneducated types with being Republicans. 
5) Most people associate "whites" with having the best quality education overall.
6) Whites still tend to be Republicans.
7) Better educated usually implies more socially moderate to liberal, but perhaps moderate/conservative on taxes.

I have no idea how to figure this one out

[SingingAnalyst]

This is one question I never understood. 

1) Better educated usually has a direct correlation with household income. 
2) Now we're saying those that are better educated are more likely than not to be Democratic.
3) Richer people (normally more-educated) tend to vote GOP.
4) We associate ignorant, uneducated types with being Republicans. 
5) Most people associate "whites" with having the best quality education overall.
6) Whites still tend to be Republicans.
7) Better educated usually implies more socially moderate to liberal, but perhaps moderate/conservative on taxes.

I have no idea how to figure this one out

Read my two polls in this forum, about which party is the party of the rich and of "ignorant hicks" (a phrase for which I, probably rightly, am taking some heat for), and some of the comments as well as the poll results.

[James Bond 007]

This is one question I never understood. 

1) Better educated usually has a direct correlation with household income. 
2) Now we're saying those that are better educated are more likely than not to be Democratic.
3) Richer people (normally more-educated) tend to vote GOP.
4) We associate ignorant, uneducated types with being Republicans. 
5) Most people associate "whites" with having the best quality education overall.
6) Whites still tend to be Republicans.
7) Better educated usually implies more socially moderate to liberal, but perhaps moderate/conservative on taxes.

I have no idea how to figure this one out

It's simpler than this though.  They say "educated" as an elitist assumption which is what elitists do.  This doesn't always mean educated. 

[sg0508]

This is one question I never understood. 

1) Better educated usually has a direct correlation with household income. 
2) Now we're saying those that are better educated are more likely than not to be Democratic.
3) Richer people (normally more-educated) tend to vote GOP.
4) We associate ignorant, uneducated types with being Republicans. 
5) Most people associate "whites" with having the best quality education overall.
6) Whites still tend to be Republicans.
7) Better educated usually implies more socially moderate to liberal, but perhaps moderate/conservative on taxes.

I have no idea how to figure this one out

It's simpler than this though.  They say "educated" as an elitist assumption which is what elitists do.  This doesn't always mean educated. 

Usually, "educated" implies some kind of college degree.  Now, what some people get out of that degree is a different discussion.

[pbrower2a]

The connection between formal education and voting Republican used to be strong. In the 1950s the Democrats may have done well among unionized workers, but then not well enough among them to win nationally. But that said, unionized workers generally had high-school diplomas, which was still above average in America.

The two maps below contrast elections. To be sure, any winner is going to win mostly states that FDR won in 1936 (he won 46 of 48), Nixon won in 1972 (49 of 50), and Reagan (49 of 50). In those years FDR lost Maine and Vermont; Nixon lost Massachusetts; Reagan lost Minnesota. Eisenhower won all four of those states twice. So did Obama win those twice. Those were not hard states for Obama to win, but two of those were states that Republicans have usually lost.

A cursory look at the map suggests that an overlay between the Ike and Obama is very good even if they are of the opposite Party. I figure that some of the groups that made many Midwestern and West Coast states generally reliable for the Republican Party now make those states generally reliably for the Democratic Party.

With few exceptions (Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, and Ohio) states in white in the Eisenhower-Obama map are above average in educational attainment.  But the states that went for Stevenson even once tended to be below average in educational achievement  then and now.

Two Presidents could hardly be more different in their curricula vitae. Eisenhower was the definitive war hero. Obama probably would be or have been a fine senior officer if he had chosen a military career, but his military record is entirely as a Commander-in-Chief. Eisenhower was one of the oldest Presidents we ever had; Obama is one of the youngest. So do they have anything in common? Sure. Both are chilly rationalists and sticklers for precedent and formality. They show more faith in the Constitution and the decisions of the Supreme Court than in the popular sentiment of the time. But I could find things in common between Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan, too.  

Maybe it is the character of educated people. Educated people are less susceptible to demagogues. Eisenhower wisely let the one big demagogue in the GOP while he was President, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, implode. Obama has felt the brunt of demagogic attacks upon him from January 3, 2009.

Barack Obama still loses the white vote badly, even that of educated white people except perhaps among those with post-graduate degrees. But he does really badly among under-educated (less than college) white people. But know well: members of the middle class among minorities are as a rule well educated. Barack Obama appeals well to educated minorities of any kind, including Hispanics (he is not Hispanic) and Asians (he is not Asian).

Have the Republicans and Democrats basically switched agendas? Probably not. The Democratic Party was the more liberal Party in the North and West  and the Republican Party was the more conservative Party in the North and West. in the 1950s and now. If anything, the ideological difference between the two Parties has intensified.  


 

 
gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice
deep blue -- Republican all four elections
light blue -- Republican all but 2008 (I assume that greater Omaha went for Ike twice)
light green -- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Obama never
dark green -- Stevenson twice, Obama never
pink -- Stevenson twice, Obama once

No state voted Democratic all four times, so no state is in deep red.


Now, Carter vs. Obama:

If anyone has any doubt that the Presidential Election of 1976 is ancient history for all practical purposes:

Carter 1976, Obama 2008/2012    

Carter 1976, Obama twice  red
Carter 1976, Obama once pink
Carter 1976, Obama never yellow
Ford 1976, Obama twice white
Ford 1976, Obama once light blue
Ford 1976, Obama never blue

....As you can see, Carter lost a raft of states (among them California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont, and Maine) that Democratic nominees for President have not lost after 1988, and some states (Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and New Mexico) that Democrats have not LOST in Presidential wins. On the other side, Carter was the last Democrat to win Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, or Texas.

Carter generally did badly in states that Eisenhower won but won practically all the states that Stevenson won. He won all but one of the "former Confederate States" (Virginia, which both Eisenhower and Obama won twice). Carter did reasonably well among poor whites; Obama did not. I'm not saying that Carter was a demagogue; far from it.

Republicans began cultivating Southern and other whites with low levels of education beginning in the 1960s. But those voters are incompatible with the "Rockefeller Republicans" who are relatively liberal on race and who respect formal education. It is possible to have a coalition based upon very different people -- but not between people diametrically opposed on practically all issues.

[James Bond 007]

The connection between formal education and voting Republican used to be strong. In the 1950s the Democrats may have done well among unionized workers, but then not well enough among them to win nationally. But that said, unionized workers generally had high-school diplomas, which was still above average in America.

The two maps below contrast elections. To be sure, any winner is going to win mostly states that FDR won in 1936 (he won 46 of 48), Nixon won in 1972 (49 of 50), and Reagan (49 of 50). In those years FDR lost Maine and Vermont; Nixon lost Massachusetts; Reagan lost Minnesota. Eisenhower won all four of those states twice. So did Obama win those twice. Those were not hard states for Obama to win, but two of those were states that Republicans have usually lost.

A cursory look at the map suggests that an overlay between the Ike and Obama is very good even if they are of the opposite Party. I figure that some of the groups that made many Midwestern and West Coast states generally reliable for the Republican Party now make those states generally reliably for the Democratic Party.

With few exceptions (Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, and Ohio) states in white in the Eisenhower-Obama map are above average in educational attainment.  But the states that went for Stevenson even once tended to be below average in educational achievement  then and now.

Two Presidents could hardly be more different in their curricula vitae. Eisenhower was the definitive war hero. Obama probably would be or have been a fine senior officer if he had chosen a military career, but his military record is entirely as a Commander-in-Chief. Eisenhower was one of the oldest Presidents we ever had; Obama is one of the youngest. So do they have anything in common? Sure. Both are chilly rationalists and sticklers for precedent and formality. They show more faith in the Constitution and the decisions of the Supreme Court than in the popular sentiment of the time. But I could find things in common between Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan, too.  

Maybe it is the character of educated people. Educated people are less susceptible to demagogues. Eisenhower wisely let the one big demagogue in the GOP while he was President, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, implode. Obama has felt the brunt of demagogic attacks upon him from January 3, 2009.

Barack Obama still loses the white vote badly, even that of educated white people except perhaps among those with post-graduate degrees. But he does really badly among under-educated (less than college) white people. But know well: members of the middle class among minorities are as a rule well educated. Barack Obama appeals well to educated minorities of any kind, including Hispanics (he is not Hispanic) and Asians (he is not Asian).

Have the Republicans and Democrats basically switched agendas? Probably not. The Democratic Party was the more liberal Party in the North and West  and the Republican Party was the more conservative Party in the North and West. in the 1950s and now. If anything, the ideological difference between the two Parties has intensified.  


 

 
gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice
deep blue -- Republican all four elections
light blue -- Republican all but 2008 (I assume that greater Omaha went for Ike twice)
light green -- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Obama never
dark green -- Stevenson twice, Obama never
pink -- Stevenson twice, Obama once

No state voted Democratic all four times, so no state is in deep red.


Now, Carter vs. Obama:

If anyone has any doubt that the Presidential Election of 1976 is ancient history for all practical purposes:

Carter 1976, Obama 2008/2012    

Carter 1976, Obama twice  red
Carter 1976, Obama once pink
Carter 1976, Obama never yellow
Ford 1976, Obama twice white
Ford 1976, Obama once light blue
Ford 1976, Obama never blue

....As you can see, Carter lost a raft of states (among them California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont, and Maine) that Democratic nominees for President have not lost after 1988, and some states (Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and New Mexico) that Democrats have not LOST in Presidential wins. On the other side, Carter was the last Democrat to win Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, or Texas.

Carter generally did badly in states that Eisenhower won but won practically all the states that Stevenson won. He won all but one of the "former Confederate States" (Virginia, which both Eisenhower and Obama won twice). Carter did reasonably well among poor whites; Obama did not. I'm not saying that Carter was a demagogue; far from it.

Republicans began cultivating Southern and other whites with low levels of education beginning in the 1960s. But those voters are incompatible with the "Rockefeller Republicans" who are relatively liberal on race and who respect formal education. It is possible to have a coalition based upon very different people -- but not between people diametrically opposed on practically all issues.

I enjoyed reading your post.  As unions faded after the 1950's, Democrats were forced to look otherwise for votes.  This began with a struggle in the electoral college throughout the 70's and 80's.  Republicans who were educated particularly in New England are now Democrats or can't get elected to office in that region.  I beg to differ that they're still out there but many can't get elected in states like MA, RI, and VT.  If they could get elected it's not like they wouldn't be able to run.  New England Republicans today still aren't as conservative as Republicans in other regions who many of which used to be southern Democrats.  As for social issues, the former southern Democrats who have either switched parties or at least vote Republican at the presidential level today, find themselves at odds with the mainstream.  We're not as socially conservative as we used to be.  Half of the parties are the same and the other half different when looking at ideology.  This shows in states such as the great plains who were Republican 100 years ago and still are today.  Then there's states in Appalachia who used to be reliably Democrat in the middle 20th century and are now likely to solid Republican. Not long after that, states like MA and RI became safely Democrat.  However, look at VT, ME, and even the west coast which was purple a generation ago.

[pbrower2a]

  As unions faded after the 1950's, Democrats were forced to look (elsewhere) for votes.  This began with a struggle in the electoral college throughout the 70's and 80's.  Republicans who were educated particularly in New England are now Democrats or can't get elected to office in that region.  I beg to differ that they're still out there but many can't get elected in states like MA, RI, and VT.  If they could get elected it's not like they wouldn't be able to run.  New England Republicans today still aren't as conservative as Republicans in other regions who many of which used to be southern Democrats.  As for social issues, the former southern Democrats who have either switched parties or at least vote Republican at the presidential level today, find themselves at odds with the mainstream.  We're not as socially conservative as we used to be.  Half of the parties are the same and the other half different when looking at ideology.  This shows in states such as the great plains who were Republican 100 years ago and still are today.  Then there's states in Appalachia who used to be reliably Democrat in the middle 20th century and are now likely to solid Republican. Not long after that, states like MA and RI became safely Democrat.  However, look at VT, ME, and even the west coast which was purple a generation ago.

I missed a common characteristic of Ike and Obama: both are cautious. It could be that better-educated people prefer caution in leaders. Thus Ike and thus Obama.


In most times the political spectrum looks like a bell-shaped curve with most voters and politicians concentrated in the middle. From Left to Right there are typically Commies, pinkos, ultra-liberals, liberals, centrists, conservatives, ultra-conservatives, reactionaries, and fascists. At the extremes are the most violent, radical, angry, intolerant, ruthless, and destructive types: Lenin and Mao on the Left; Hitler and Khomeini on the Right. If you want to talk of cultural figures, Gorky is on the far Left and Mishima is on the Far Right. Today the American political culture promotes a bimodal distribution with peaks in the reactionary and liberal areas. Compromise fails because the opposing sides have little in common except for being in America.

It may be hard to believe, but someone like Bill Clinton could not now be elected Governor of Arkansas, and someone like Al Gore could not be elected to the US Senate from Tennessee. On the other side, someone like Ronald Reagan could never be elected to high office in California.

One nasty consequence results: nearly half the people are going to be terribly unhappy with any political result. That is how a bimodal distribution works: much  of the political 'energy' will be well off the center. 

[James Bond 007]

  As unions faded after the 1950's, Democrats were forced to look (elsewhere) for votes.  This began with a struggle in the electoral college throughout the 70's and 80's.  Republicans who were educated particularly in New England are now Democrats or can't get elected to office in that region.  I beg to differ that they're still out there but many can't get elected in states like MA, RI, and VT.  If they could get elected it's not like they wouldn't be able to run.  New England Republicans today still aren't as conservative as Republicans in other regions who many of which used to be southern Democrats.  As for social issues, the former southern Democrats who have either switched parties or at least vote Republican at the presidential level today, find themselves at odds with the mainstream.  We're not as socially conservative as we used to be.  Half of the parties are the same and the other half different when looking at ideology.  This shows in states such as the great plains who were Republican 100 years ago and still are today.  Then there's states in Appalachia who used to be reliably Democrat in the middle 20th century and are now likely to solid Republican. Not long after that, states like MA and RI became safely Democrat.  However, look at VT, ME, and even the west coast which was purple a generation ago.

I missed a common characteristic of Ike and Obama: both are cautious. It could be that better-educated people prefer caution in leaders. Thus Ike and thus Obama.


In most times the political spectrum looks like a bell-shaped curve with most voters and politicians concentrated in the middle. From Left to Right there are typically Commies, pinkos, ultra-liberals, liberals, centrists, conservatives, ultra-conservatives, reactionaries, and fascists. At the extremes are the most violent, radical, angry, intolerant, ruthless, and destructive types: Lenin and Mao on the Left; Hitler and Khomeini on the Right. If you want to talk of cultural figures, Gorky is on the far Left and Mishima is on the Far Right. Today the American political culture promotes a bimodal distribution with peaks in the reactionary and liberal areas. Compromise fails because the opposing sides have little in common except for being in America.

It may be hard to believe, but someone like Bill Clinton could not now be elected Governor of Arkansas, and someone like Al Gore could not be elected to the US Senate from Tennessee. On the other side, someone like Ronald Reagan could never be elected to high office in California.

One nasty consequence results: nearly half the people are going to be terribly unhappy with any political result. That is how a bimodal distribution works: much  of the political 'energy' will be well off the center. 

Again, well said.  Another we're seeing is there's less battleground states within say 3-4 points.  Of course this expands if we go off of distance from center.  Then we're still left with NH, PA, OH, WI, IA, VA, FL, CO, NV, and soon NC.  Parties are too different partly because of diversity and no one really having the upper hand anymore in the electorate.  I'd like to point out though that most of what gets signed into law would be the same regardless of who the president is.  Rhetoric on the campaign trail is much different from what goes in in D.C.  Nothing would ever get done without some form of compromise except for maybe the healthcare bill.  We don't need to debate that here though.  Social issues are largely the reasons for Clinton and Gore no longer being able to win Arkansas and Reagan not being able to win California along with younger voters mainly voting Democrat.  Regions have had their trends too again due to social issues becoming more prevalent.

[White Trash]

Contrary to popular belief, Southern white democrats in rural areas still do exist. And the majority (not all) aren't as well educated as the average American. Support for Sanders in Oklahoma and his lesser support in Dixie proves this.

[Medal506]

Republican Primary 2016


Ted Cruz Nominee
Donald J Trump: Lost the nomination 7/25/16
John Kasich: Withdrew 4/26/16
Marco Rubio: Withdrew 3/15/16



President Ted Cruz: 2017 - 2025
Vice President Scott Walker


Republican Primary 2024

Tom Cotton - Secretary of State 2021 - Present

Matt Bevin - Senator from Kentucky 2021 - Present

Rand Paul - Senator from Kentucky 2011 - 2023

Nikki Haley - Governor of South Carolina 2011 - 2019

Scott Walker - Vice President 2017 - Present

Chris Christie - Attorney General 2017 - 2023

Marco Rubio - Senator from Florida 2011 - 2017

Paul Ryan - House Speaker 2015 - 2017

Rick Scott - Governor of Florida 2011 - 2019

Ben Carson - Senator from Florida 2019 - Present

Raul Ladrador - Congressman from Idaho 2011 - Present

Mike Pence - Governor of Indiana 2013 - 2021

[RINO Tom]

Republican Primary 2016


Ted Cruz Nominee
Donald J Trump: Lost the nomination 7/25/16
John Kasich: Withdrew 4/26/16
Marco Rubio: Withdrew 3/15/16



President Ted Cruz: 2017 - 2025
Vice President Scott Walker


Republican Primary 2024

Tom Cotton - Secretary of State 2021 - Present

Matt Bevin - Senator from Kentucky 2021 - Present

Rand Paul - Senator from Kentucky 2011 - 2023

Nikki Haley - Governor of South Carolina 2011 - 2019

Scott Walker - Vice President 2017 - Present

Chris Christie - Attorney General 2017 - 2023

Marco Rubio - Senator from Florida 2011 - 2017

Paul Ryan - House Speaker 2015 - 2017

Rick Scott - Governor of Florida 2011 - 2019

Ben Carson - Senator from Florida 2019 - Present

Raul Ladrador - Congressman from Idaho 2011 - Present

Mike Pence - Governor of Indiana 2013 - 2021

Tryin' to give OC a run for his money?

[RaphaelDLG]

The Republicans are the party of the culturally conservative whites and the rich who work in industries that favor deregulation/small government (i.e., oil, mining companies).

The Democrats are the party of minorities and the socially liberal and the rich who work in information/technology industries that need some big government regulation, spending, and infrastructure and education investment (i.e., silicon valley).  A lot of this constituency naturally tends to hold advanced degrees.

You see both of these cleavages reflected in the differences in campaign giving across industries.

There is no substantive party of the working class anymore, though both parties, especially the Democrats, frequently pander to working class voters in various ways only to betray them time and time again. 

The growing Sanders-Warren-Piketty wing of the Democratic party is a challenge to these dominant cleavages, as is the Trump candidacy (albeit an incredibly misguided one led by a con artist).