NationStates Jolt Archive

Many have been claiming on here that the reason why Bush won was because a mass of unintelligent voters showed up to vote for him. However, that is not true. According to exit polls done by Edison Media and Miftosky International, education levels are roughly the same. Most high school dropouts and high school grads voted for Kerry, while most college grads voted for Bush. Only by the time we got to post-graduate studies did we find a huge increase of Kerry support. This proves that no one party can claim intellectual superiority, even though it is a nice thought :).

Before the lock:

Democratic states on average have a higher IQ.

Before the lock:

Democratic states on average have a higher IQ.
How do we know that? How can we even measure it by state-to-state basis? We could use school results, but only adults vote, and many of them weren't even born in their home states.

Before the lock:

Democratic states on average have a higher IQ.

Not to mention that Republicans poll as being way more misinformed than Democrats. Especially with regard to Bush.

And while that may have been the demographic breakdown with Bush/Kerry those who go to college are more likely to be more liberal, and the more college they get the more liberal they're likely to become. Unless they're business majors.

There is, however, a huge, well funded, and well organized effort to convince college students to turn conservative-Republican so the trend seems to be that college students are becoming more conservative than they used to, but still largely liberal-democrat.

Not to mention that Republicans poll as being way more misinformed than Democrats. Especially with regard to Bush.

And while that may have been the demographic breakdown with Bush/Kerry those who go to college are more likely to be more liberal, and the more college they get the more liberal they're likely to become. Unless they're business majors.

There is, however, a huge, well funded, and well organized effort to convince college students to turn conservative-Republican so the trend seems to be that college students are becoming more conservative than they used to, but still largely liberal-democrat.
But how do you explain the fact that nearly all educational levels are evenly split on whom to vote for?

http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~gcharter/iq.txt

Ever stop to wonder why they call it Liberal arts?
[/conspiracy]

Before the lock:

Democratic states on average have a higher IQ.

Wrong.

http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~gcharter/iq.txt

Someone get those links that disproved it. I'm a lazy, lazy man.

i dont think they mean "smarts" but more political smarts which alot of ppl dont have much of (belive me) they watch like 1 news channel and thats it.

http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~gcharter/iq.txt
Obviously, this didn't happen this year to the extent that it may have gone in 2000.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
I want you to especially look at the Education level poll near the top. It was almost dead even until we got to the catagory of post-graduate studies, which went overwhelmingly for Bush.
Edit: Most of those who voted had at least a high school education, and most of them went to college.

Many have been claiming on here that the reason why Bush won was because a mass of unintelligent voters showed up to vote for him. However, that is not true. According to exit polls done by Edison Media and Miftosky International, education levels are roughly the same. Most high school dropouts and high school grads voted for Kerry, while most college grads voted for Bush. Only by the time we got to post-graduate studies did we find a huge increase of Kerry support. This proves that no one party can claim intellectual superiority, even though it is a nice thought :).
Actually, the reason Bush won was because a mass of hardcore Christians showed up to vote for him.

May I offer this as evidence?

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=371178

;)

Actually, the reason Bush won was because a mass of hardcore Christians showed up to vote for him.
Oh, definatly. But that can be depended of the South. Besides, more than half of the nation doesn't seem that deeply religious from these polls, and they were, again, nearly split even.

May I offer this as evidence?

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=371178

;)
Maybe he was just excited. As a Republican, when Bush won, I had a feeling like the lyrics of this song.

I'm so excited
and I just can't hide it
I'm about to loose control, and I think I like it

Before the lock:

Democratic states on average have a higher IQ.

IQ is measured properly only on an individual basis, with a huge test that takes hours to take and score. A very small fraction of the US population has ever taken an accurate IQ test, so I'd suggest reconsidering the validity of the list that shows this.

Bush had the religious right vote for him. I don't think I need any more proof that Bush supporters tend to be dumber than Kerry/Democratic Supporters are.


/flame

Bush had the religious right vote for him. I don't think I need any more proof that Bush supporters tend to be dumber than Kerry/Democratic Supporters are.


/flame
God help you. Of course, I have an alternative message, if you don't believe in God: run.

IQ is measured properly only on an individual basis, with a huge test that takes hours to take and score. A very small fraction of the US population has ever taken an accurate IQ test, so I'd suggest reconsidering the validity of the list that shows this.

Yeah. Consider how hard it would be to get an large enough sample for something like that. First you'd have to take how many people actually voted. Then, out of those, how many were willing to answer exit polls. Then, out of those, how many have had legitimate IQ tests. Then, out of those, how many would so readily admit their IQ score.

I doubt there is an education gap. There are plenty of smart people who voted for Bush and plenty of dumb people who voted for Kerry. How well informed they were is a different story.

This land is my land
This land is your land
I'm an intellectual
You're a stupid dumbass!
Actually, all my friends were split over supporting Bush/Kerry

Actually, all my friends were split over supporting Bush/Kerry
As were mine. And we're all geeks.
The best part about this election, however, was that for the first time, I saw real debate happening among everyone. I'm not naive, and assume that turnout will be this high in 2008. But I'm glad so many were interested in their future.

As were mine. And we're all geeks.
The best part about this election, however, was that for the first time, I saw real debate happening among everyone. I'm not naive, and assume that turnout will be this high in 2008. But I'm glad so many were interested in their future.
Yeah - only problem was that one or two of my friends wanted to vote Kerry 'cause they were ABB; whether or not they actually researched the issues is something I will never know.

Belief exists independent of intelligence. Even the racial separatist movements have intelligent people at the top...doesn't stop them from believing ridiculous things despite evidence to the contrary.

Also, studies have shown fans of the talking heads on AM radio to be of lower educational levels. Whether that's just damning to the pundits or the party as a whole, well, I draw no conclusions.

Obviously, this didn't happen this year to the extent that it may have gone in 2000.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
I want you to especially look at the Education level poll near the top. It was almost dead even until we got to the catagory of post-graduate studies, which went overwhelmingly for Bush.
Edit: Most of those who voted had at least a high school education, and most of them went to college.

That's a great link. I'm so bookmarking it.

http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~gcharter/iq.txt

How bout the IQ scores of people who keep posting this link....

Belief exists independent of intelligence. Even the racial separatist movements have intelligent people at the top...doesn't stop them from believing ridiculous things despite evidence to the contrary.
Even so, doesn't it mean that they can justify their conclusions? I mean, John Calvin and Karl Marx were fundementally opposed on many issues, but it doesn't discredit the fact that they were both geniuses. Same with who I credit, other than Socrates, to be the founders of modern thought: Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes. They had far differing views, but neither one is less of a genius.
Also, studies have shown fans of the talking heads on AM radio to be of lower educational levels. Whether that's just damning to the pundits or the party as a whole, well, I draw no conclusions.
Even the so-called "moderate" pundits do nothing but scream. I doubt if any listeners/viewers of these bimbos are smart people, and can stand their shit simultaneously.