Idaho ignored?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Sure.

Add a high tech corporate office and BOOM a million Democrats are programmed and then released onto the population.

Except... in all probability, the new workers are Republicans already, and there aren't many. And young people from conservative places are still conservative.

I would bet any amount on your proposition-- an only 15 point Bush win. 5 grand? 10 grand?

Kerry has a wide margin among college graduates.

Wrong.

Bush won college grads in 2000 and will again.

Better luck next time.

I don't think this is true....Bush won college grads who don't have graduate degree, while Gore won those with post-grad degrees by a wide margin.   I believe Gore edged Bush out narrowly when the two groups are combined.

I think Bush won the combined group slightly.

But, that's not the point. A lot of post-grads are professors, and they are leftist of course because of all the various reasons people talk about.

Take out college profs, and college grads are clearly Republican.

In other words, getting a more educated work force makes you MORE REPUBLICAN not less. I guess building a college would make you more Democratic.

But why would you remove college professors?  I could just as easily say that if you remove corporate executives, college grads are clearly Democratic.  Teachers are part of the work force too.

Please do not compare my profession to what college professors do.

I realize the demands of the job are much different...but you are still both teachers.  Just like surgeons, family practitioners, and NIH researchers are all doctors.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

You didn't read my post very well.

My point was: "high-tech" jobs are not held by Democrats.

Getting Micron does not add Democrats.

That is an issue on this thread.

People with normal degrees and real jobs lean GOP.

Maybe, but the poor working class in Boise, where Micron is located, is moving Democrat. They elected their first Democrat as Mayor in years, and they voted against the incumbant Republican Governor.

It appears your logic is in conflict with the reality of the situation.

I think Boise is the new Boulder, and Idaho is going to start looking a lot more like Colorado in the near future.

[J-Mann]

I have a theory about why college graduates as a whole tend to be and vote Republican (and this was a statistic I saw recently, by the way.  I'll post a source if I run across it again, but college grads were slightly more Republican).

Colleges aren't just pumping out liberal arts majors.  I attend Kansas State University (and we got thumped by the Jayhawks, no less, in football yesterday - sad), and in addition to a College of Arts and Sciences, we have Architecture, Engineering, Agriculture, Veteranary Medicine, Human Ecology, Education, Aviation and Business schools.

Liberal Arts majors, some of which end up being the economics/political science/history/philosophy professors who lend credence to the "liberal professor" stereotype, usually tend to be liberal.  If they're not liberal when they're freshman, there's a good chance that their world view has expanded such that they'd be considered a lot more liberal upon graduation.

However, I've got a lot of friends in Architecture, Engineering, and Business.  These people never develop a world view beyond what they knew in high school.  It's likely that they come into college as conservatives (in this state and at the college, anyway) and they'll leave as conservative.  They don't know any more about the world around them or how it works, but they know how to design a house/build a bridge/balance a checkbook, etc.  

In Arts and Sciences, we're more prone to study world history and institutions, and many students end up becoming idealists, seeing that the world has been a not-so-friendly place in the past and committed to making it better.  Along that same line of thinking, many turn to liberalism.

That's my theory.  There are a lot of "liberal arts" majors here, but the other schools on campus outnumber us, and their students are far less prone to changing, growing, or evolving their world views as a result of their educations.  My three roommates are business majors and engineers.  They're voting for Bush but have no idea why.  

[rbt48]

Yes, I could imagine Idaho going Democratic in the Presidential race if Zell Miller were the Democratic nominee and someone like John Anderson or maybe Jim Jeffords were the Republican nominee.  

Bush carried ID by nearly 40 points in 2000, 67.17% to 27.64.  Since 1968, the democratic nominee has received an overall average of 30.1% of the vote there.  A liberal like Kerry will be lucky to top 30% in Idaho.

Still, it is smart to keep track of trends in the various states.  Many were surprised in 1928 when RI and Massachusetts suddenly went Democratic after having been stalwart Republican states since 1856.  This happened in the Hoover landslide of that year, but the Yankee-Protestant makeup of those states had vanished as Irish and southern European immigrants were attracted to the Catholicism of Al Smith.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

10 points???  Al Gore lost by 40!  Idaho is the most hopeless state in American for Democrats.

No, Utah is.

Demographics will pull Idaho left.  It will follow in the footsteps of Nevada and Arizona.  Someday it will become a battleground.  Maybe as early as 2012.

Ummm, no way.
Idaho is the most partisan state in the union.

[Shira]

Sure.

Add a high tech corporate office and BOOM a million Democrats are programmed and then released onto the population.

Except... in all probability, the new workers are Republicans already, and there aren't many. And young people from conservative places are still conservative.

I would bet any amount on your proposition-- an only 15 point Bush win. 5 grand? 10 grand?

Kerry has a wide margin among college graduates.

Wrong.

Bush won college grads in 2000 and will again.

Better luck next time.

Not in 2004. I heard Bill Schnieder with the breakdown few days ago on CNN.

[TheWildCard]

Here's a question why would a big tech company bring Democrats?

Not saying it isn't so, I'm just curious.

[Shira]

Here's a question why would a big tech company bring Democrats?

Not saying it isn't so, I'm just curious.

They are not bringing Democrats. They are trying to bring qualified people. The more educated the person is it is more likely that she/he is a democrat.

[Rococo4]

Kerry will win Idaho if Bush's Timber Company comes in and cuts down all of the trees.

TIIIIIIMBERRRRR!!!

[Donovan]

Here's a question why would a big tech company bring Democrats?

Not saying it isn't so, I'm just curious.

They are not bringing Democrats. They are trying to bring qualified people. The more educated the person is it is more likely that she/he is a democrat.

Actually, it attractes many people from Western Oregon and Washington that have lost jobs. They tend to be more liberal. Plus, the new population is young with young children and is creating more teaching jobs, those teachers tend to be liberal as well.

[A18]

No.


No.

I think the Idaho result will surprise a lot of people.  55-40, with Bandarik getting 3 and Nader getting 2, would not surprise me, although it would be a shocker to most.

Here's my Idaho prediction: Bush 68.38%, Kerry 30.26%.

[Alcon]

High-tech workers are more likely to be Democrats, but not significantly. Software programmers tend to be, although that is partially because they are located in the Silicon Valley. High-tech jobs have moved leftwards several counties in Washington, although not enough to even flip them - maybe three points at the most.

Idaho ain't going anywhere. Boise is moving leftwards a tiny bit, as is the urban northern part of the state. However, it's very, very tiny.

[phk]

In California

No High School (4%)
Bush:58%
Bush Improvement over 2000: +31
Kerry: 37%

H.S. Graduate (16%)
Bush:50%
Bush Improvement over 2000:+4
Kerry:48%

Some College (34%)
Bush:50%
Bush Improvement over 2000:+9
Kerry:49%

College Graduate (29%)
Bush:40%
Bush Improvement over 2000:-5
Kerry:57%

Postgrad Study (17%)
Bush:33%
Bush Improvement over 2000:-7
Kerry:64%

Lets just put it this way, plutocracy ain't what it used to be.

But back on topic. Even with Hispanic populace and movement from the Seattle area; these affects are too slow to make it a swing state, and if they ever do; it wont be 2012, maybe 2060.

[A18]

Most "education" is nonsense.

Income is the best indicator. Those making $200,000 or more a year went 63% for Bush.

[phk]

His % probably has fallen from 2000.

[Alcon]

Most "education" is nonsense.

Smooth, Philip. Real smooth.

[Gabu]

Most "education" is nonsense.

I always love it when people mock university education while using technology created by those with Ph.Ds who could not have created it without what they learned in university.

[A18]

Most "education" is nonsense.

I always love it when people mock university education while using technology created by those with Ph.Ds who could not have created it without what they learned in university.

Lots of college graduates did nothing with their lives. Lots of college dropouts did a lot.

It doesn't matter where you get the education, it just matters that you get it.

[Alcon]

Most "education" is nonsense.

I always love it when people mock university education while using technology created by those with Ph.Ds who could not have created it without what they learned in university.

Lots of college graduates did nothing with their lives. Lots of college dropouts did a lot.

It doesn't matter where you get the education, it just matters that you get it.

College dropouts do not, however, get an education. They get a partial education.

Those that graduate college are significantly more likely to be successful and make money than those who don't. It's why people spend money on college.

[Shira]

10 points???  Al Gore lost by 40!  Idaho is the most hopeless state in American for Democrats.

In Idaho there was "some movement" in the right direction. In 2000 Bush got there 20.4% above his national number. In 2004 this number was "only" 18%.
The  most hopeless state in American for Democrats is Utah. people there are very strange. Bush got there 21.2% above his national one.

[phk]

Only Democrats with the last name Matheson can win in Utah.

[A18]

10 points???  Al Gore lost by 40!  Idaho is the most hopeless state in American for Democrats.

In Idaho there was "some movement" in the right direction. In 2000 Bush got there 20.4% above his national number. In 2004 this number was "only" 18%.
The  most hopeless state in American for Democrats is Utah. people there are very strange. Bush got there 21.2% above his national one.

The national comparison is irrelevant. The state moved 1.2% towards Bush. That's not as far as the country moved, but it is not movement in the wrong direction.

[Alcon]

10 points???  Al Gore lost by 40!  Idaho is the most hopeless state in American for Democrats.

In Idaho there was "some movement" in the right direction. In 2000 Bush got there 20.4% above his national number. In 2004 this number was "only" 18%.
The  most hopeless state in American for Democrats is Utah. people there are very strange. Bush got there 21.2% above his national one.

The national comparison is irrelevant. The state moved 1.2% towards Bush. That's not as far as the country moved, but it is not movement in the wrong direction.

No, it's saturation. Republicans pretty much can't do much better in Idaho. There's a peak that is hard to go above without increasing turnout among a significant group (i.e. the Mormons).

[Shira]

10 points???  Al Gore lost by 40!  Idaho is the most hopeless state in American for Democrats.

In Idaho there was "some movement" in the right direction. In 2000 Bush got there 20.4% above his national number. In 2004 this number was "only" 18%.
The  most hopeless state in American for Democrats is Utah. people there are very strange. Bush got there 21.2% above his national one.

The national comparison is irrelevant. The state moved 1.2% towards Bush. That's not as far as the country moved, but it is not movement in the wrong direction.

The margin over the national is the most significant indicator when deciding what kind of state we are dealing with.

As to ID numbers, I combined Buchanan with Bush. Buchanan got there 1.8% in 2000. These people voted for Bush in 2004.

[A18]

If a Republican got 70% of the PV in 2008, do you think he'd get 90% in Utah? What if one state has a really partisan 45% Democratic base, and normally goes 53% for Republicans. If a Republican got 60% of the vote nationally and only 55% in the state, would you call it a Democratic state. Your indicator is everything except an indicator.

I understand the Buchanan stuff, though I imagine some of them went to Peroutka.