• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are there more uneducated voters on the left or on the right?

Are there more uneducated voters on the left or on the right?


  • Total voters
    56
LOL...progressive socialists vote out of emotion, and large parts of dem constituents are told who to vote for by those who are paid cash to get them to the ballot box.

Please provide cite for that analysis.... I think you are carrying around another warped impression that has no basis of fact behind it. Fundamentally that is bigotry. Talk about acting out of emotion?

You do know that in a debate, if you make a claim and get called on it, you must back it up with 3rd party evidence or we get to assume its not true. Since I have never seen you actually back anything up that you say, we know how this will shake out.
 
Last edited:
Why on Earth would anyone not rich vote Republican?
If you’re in the luckiest one percent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 percent.
-- Warren Buffett​


Interesting that you'd mention that. It is almost precisely the question my father (a Republican from the Eisenhower years on) pondered repeatedly from the wake of the Reagan restoration of the GOP to his passing a few years ago. As he put it, "What kind of idiot must one be to be of modest means and subordinate one's financial well being and prospects for tax code equanimity to whether someone else does or doesn't give birth or whether a bunch of [gays have can sex]? It's just ridiculous. Those are the kinds of things with which one concerns oneself after security one's financial independence, not before."

Dad was keenly aware of his duty to his countrymen; thus as go priorities, he embraced the notion that before there can be noblesse oblige there must be, with regard to one's finances, vitesse oblige. Dad saw life as a set of priorities, and the first priority for him (Dad was a member of "The Greatest Generation") was providing for his family, achieving a financial position whereby the only way he and we were going to be in real financial peril was either he or someone in his household was incredibly imprudent (fiscally or otherwise) or the nation was experiencing an economic depression on the order of the Great Depression, or both.

Dad was, IMO, a very prescient fellow for he was quick to note a host of realities that yet perplex many. For instance, Dad's deep Southern roots didn't bestow in him much regard for minorities on the whole, yet his economic sensibilities informed him that regardless of his social views about non-whites that he and the nation were still better off with policies that hastened blacks', as a segment of the citizenry, obtaining financial parity with whites. He went to his grave pitying blacks, for in his mind blacks had, for all but the last decade of the 20th century, faced among the most damnable of poor choices:
  • GOP prior to Reagan -- social regard and economic disregard (though not on account of their being black, but because they were poor), or
  • Democrats prior to Clinton -- cling to a brief blast of social reform, followed by nearly half a century of abnegation thereof by way of insouciance
  • GOP after Reagan -- progressive resurrection of pre-Civil Rights era mentality toward their plight compounded with policies that disfavored the poor, regardless of race.
  • Democrats after Clinton -- despite the increased enlightenment they were ineffectual at implementing policies that aligned with those ideas.
I think Dad never arrived at a conclusion about which major party's leaders and ideologies least disserved blacks. Be that as it may, he existed not in a state of denial about the ills of either. His acknowledgement of that, despite his only ever arriving at a mental state of indifference about racial minorities, is something that, IMO, even today far too many conservatives and liberals deny.


If you happened to be born on third base, you didn't rub it in the face of the guy who wasn't even born in the stadium. Self-interest was generally checked at the door with your coat and hat.
-- Ron Suskind, Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington, and the Education of a President
 
Please provide cite for that analysis.... you do know that if you can't back up your claim with 3rd party evidence that its not true.

While I understand the thrust of your remark, and I'd challenge the other member to soundly/cogently substantiate his claim, I can't "get with" the back end of your "gauntlet" statement. Surely you know that isn't at all what makes an assertion be so?
 
What the hell does this even mean? Abortion? Gay marriage? God? What the hell does God have to do with how people vote? "Vote for Trump because he's God"?

Why do you keep pretending to be a moderate? if this is what you think represents the Republican Party, you're no moderate.

I listed several things. And, yes, people do vote because the Republican party believes in God more than the Democratic party does, like it or not. There is a fairly good size section which does not like gay marriage and is against the murder of life. Disagree with it all you want but many people do vote because of religion and God. Have you never even heard of the Evangelical vote? To the best of my knowledge, Evangelicals believe in God and are against gay marriage and abortion and won't vote Democratic because of these.
 
While I understand the thrust of your remark, and I'd challenge the other member to soundly/cogently substantiate his claim, I can't "get with" the back end of your "gauntlet" statement. Surely you know that isn't at all what makes an assertion be so?

Think of debate as a court of law. The defendant may be guilty, but in the court you must prove his guilt. If you make an assertion, the defense attorney gets to demand that assertion be supported with evidence. The failure of the prosecution to support the allegation means that the allegation is withdrawn by those judging (the jury). You don't get to make unsubstantiated claims in a court of law nor in a debate (which, fundamentally a trial is).

The particular poster I called out continues to make wildass statements that he can support. It's time that he called out on it lest he will continue to be but a mosquito of discourse.
 
The right is represented by the 1% and the morons that believe that the 1% are going to let that wealth "trickle down" to them. You have to be a moron to believe that. It's always trickle up. Nevertheless, the aforementioned morons, are pretty decent people that just want somebody to do their thinking for them, or present a mind numbing imagery "good guy," "bad guy" or simplified arguments with no complications. You see a great deal of that on this forum. Partisan points of view, uninterrupted by common sense, logic or reason.
/

Well, the Republican tax plan gives most of the 99% more money. So, it does trickle down. The only argument you can make is that more trickles down to the 1% than the 99%.
 
Depends on what you mean by educated.

Certainly the left has more people with college degrees.... but in my opinion that seems to be a function of indoctrination/influence rather than education.

Intellectuals have always been responsible for almost all the greatest tragedies in human history. You do not get common sense and wisdom from education.
Like what? The Reign of Terror. Are their any other examples?

Intellectuals are among the first to be persecuted because they are the biggest threats to despots. Intellectualism lifted us out of barbarism and savagery. Countries and civilizations that encourage free thought and listen to the advice of experts thrive. Ones that don't turn bloody.

Nazism was very much an anti-intellectual movement, hence the prevalence of completely incompetent people in high leadership positions. Communism has similar groundings and is fueled by proletariat anger. The response to the Hundred Flowers movement is proof enough of that. The Church has a long history of bloody purges of intellectuals. The Islamic world was the pinnacle of civilization and human achievement until anti-intellectual forces began to dominate.
 
Think of debate as a court of law. The defendant may be guilty, but in the court you must prove his guilt. If you make an assertion, the defense attorney gets to demand that assertion be supported with evidence. The failure of the prosecution to support the allegation means that the allegation is withdrawn by those judging (the jury). You don't get to make unsubstantiated claims in a court of law nor in a debate (which, fundamentally a trial is).

The particular poster I called out continues to make wildass statements that he can support. It's time that he called out on it lest he will continue to be but a mosquito of discourse.
Conceptually, yes, that's about what's going on. In practice, that is not how it works. What plays out in the courtroom is the dialectic: argument, counterargument, rebuttal and conclusion. The defense does not get to implore the prosecution to produce anything; what the defense does, if it so chooses, is rebut positively the merit of the premises and inferences the prosecution presents.
 
I listed several things. And, yes, people do vote because the Republican party believes in God more than the Democratic party does, like it or not. There is a fairly good size section which does not like gay marriage and is against the murder of life. Disagree with it all you want but many people do vote because of religion and God. Have you never even heard of the Evangelical vote? To the best of my knowledge, Evangelicals believe in God and are against gay marriage and abortion and won't vote Democratic because of these.

Holy ****. You don't understand separation of church and state.

Yes, the Evangelicals who gave the man who admittedly broke numerous commandments a "mulligan" for his behavior? Yes, we all know about them.

Any idiot who votes because they think someone who they don't know believes in God, or because one's belief of lack of belief in God has anything to do with legislating in a country with the separation of church and state in our Constitution has no clue at all what the lawmakers in this country do, or what they are supposed to do.

I think, by the way, everyone is against the "murder of life". That's why murder is against the laws of this country. Who do you know supports murder?
 
Equal amounts, but as of late the Right is wearing it as a badge of honor.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
Think of debate as a court of law. The defendant may be guilty, but in the court you must prove his guilt. If you make an assertion, the defense attorney gets to demand that assertion be supported with evidence. The failure of the prosecution to support the allegation means that the allegation is withdrawn by those judging (the jury). You don't get to make unsubstantiated claims in a court of law nor in a debate (which, fundamentally a trial is).

The particular poster I called out continues to make wildass statements that he can support. It's time that he called out on it lest he will continue to be but a mosquito of discourse.
Yes, I know. I would have done the same. Indeed, in another thread I did more or less just that. Specifically, what I did was
  1. Recognize that the OP-er's assertion is heterodox.
  2. Present the orthodoxy and the proofs for its legitimacy.
  3. Ask him to justify his position with specific reference to how it fits into well understood, proven and accepted principles. Of course, as an implicit alternative, he may if he cares to and is able to, present a treatise that shows that those principles are indeed invalid, whereupon he need not reconcile his claim with the orthodoxy, instead needing only to present the merits of his position and the empirical proofs that support it. (Frankly, I don't imagine the member will pursue the latter tack for, as goes his assertion, that would be stuff worth of a Nobel prize in economics. Were I to present something of that nature, here'd be the last place I'd initially present it.)

My point when I responded to you was and remains that third party support is not all that can make a statement/proposition true.
 
Equal amounts, but as of late the Right is wearing it as a badge of honor.

Yeah, to me this is really the kicker. While there may be some idiots in the Democratic party, they don't control the party. In the Republican party, ignorance reigns supreme. Idiots control the party, and they're proud of how stupid they are.
 
Holy ****. You don't understand separation of church and state.

Yes, the Evangelicals who gave the man who admittedly broke numerous commandments a "mulligan" for his behavior? Yes, we all know about them.

Any idiot who votes because they think someone who they don't know believes in God, or because one's belief of lack of belief in God has anything to do with legislating in a country with the separation of church and state in our Constitution has no clue at all what the lawmakers in this country do, or what they are supposed to do.

I think, by the way, everyone is against the "murder of life". That's why murder is against the laws of this country. Who do you know supports murder?

I don't know what in the hell you are talking about. I was asked by another poster why any 99%'r would vote for a Republican and I gave the poster some reasons. That's all there is to it. Nothing to analyze.
 
Yeah, to me this is really the kicker. While there may be some idiots in the Democratic party, they don't control the party.

Nancy Pelosi Mad Cow.jpg
 
Educational divide in vote preferences on track to be wider than in recent elections

Pew Research Center, SEPTEMBER 15, 2016

The contest for president between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is marked by an educational divide that is far wider than in past elections.

In Pew Research Center’s August survey, registered voters with a college degree or more education favor Clinton over Trump by 23 percentage points (52% Clinton vs. 29% Trump) in a four-way contest that included Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson (supported by 11% of voters with at least a college degree) and Green Party candidate Jill Stein (4%).

By contrast, voters who do not have a college degree were more divided in their preferences: 41% backed Trump, 36% Clinton, 9% Johnson and 5% Stein.

If the gap between Clinton and Trump holds in November, it will be the widest educational divide in any election in the last several decades. And the current gap is particularly pronounced among white voters...

Among white voters in the current election, college graduates support Clinton over Trump by a 14-point margin (47% Clinton vs. 33% Trump), while those without college degrees back Trump over Clinton by an even larger 25-point margin (51% Trump vs. 26% Clinton), according to the Center’s survey conducted Aug. 9-16.
Educational divide in vote preferences on track to be wider than in recent elections | Pew Research Center
 
Re: Educational divide in vote preferences on track to be wider than in recent elections

Pew Research Center, SEPTEMBER 15, 2016

The contest for president between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is marked by an educational divide that is far wider than in past elections.

In Pew Research Center’s August survey, registered voters with a college degree or more education favor Clinton over Trump by 23 percentage points (52% Clinton vs. 29% Trump) in a four-way contest that included Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson (supported by 11% of voters with at least a college degree) and Green Party candidate Jill Stein (4%).

By contrast, voters who do not have a college degree were more divided in their preferences: 41% backed Trump, 36% Clinton, 9% Johnson and 5% Stein.

If the gap between Clinton and Trump holds in November, it will be the widest educational divide in any election in the last several decades. And the current gap is particularly pronounced among white voters...

Among white voters in the current election, college graduates support Clinton over Trump by a 14-point margin (47% Clinton vs. 33% Trump), while those without college degrees back Trump over Clinton by an even larger 25-point margin (51% Trump vs. 26% Clinton), according to the Center’s survey conducted Aug. 9-16.
Educational divide in vote preferences on track to be wider than in recent elections | Pew Research Center

We've already had facts from other elections which prove that in some elections, more uneducated vote for Republicans and in some elections more uneducated vote for Democrats. As usual, your side cherry picks the information which proves your side. Evidence shows that it is actually 50/50, depending on which election you want to cherry pick.
 
Like what? The Reign of Terror. Are their any other examples?

Intellectuals are among the first to be persecuted because they are the biggest threats to despots. Intellectualism lifted us out of barbarism and savagery. Countries and civilizations that encourage free thought and listen to the advice of experts thrive. Ones that don't turn bloody.

Nazism was very much an anti-intellectual movement, hence the prevalence of completely incompetent people in high leadership positions. Communism has similar groundings and is fueled by proletariat anger. The response to the Hundred Flowers movement is proof enough of that. The Church has a long history of bloody purges of intellectuals. The Islamic world was the pinnacle of civilization and human achievement until anti-intellectual forces began to dominate.

I already went into examples in a previous post.
 
Yes, I know. I would have done the same. Indeed, in another thread I did more or less just that. Specifically, what I did was
  1. Recognize that the OP-er's assertion is heterodox.
  2. Present the orthodoxy and the proofs for its legitimacy.
  3. Ask him to justify his position with specific reference to how it fits into well understood, proven and accepted principles. Of course, as an implicit alternative, he may if he cares to and is able to, present a treatise that shows that those principles are indeed invalid, whereupon he need not reconcile his claim with the orthodoxy, instead needing only to present the merits of his position and the empirical proofs that support it. (Frankly, I don't imagine the member will pursue the latter tack for, as goes his assertion, that would be stuff worth of a Nobel prize in economics. Were I to present something of that nature, here'd be the last place I'd initially present it.)

My point when I responded to you was and remains that third party support is not all that can make a statement/proposition true.

I do agree. Well done!

However, I do not like lazy posters that state impressions as fact and can not support them. Especially when those impressions are simply off the wall and thus somewhat offensive, as was the case with the poster I challenged. I am not a lazy poster (if you read my posts you would see they are generally well supported), but I don't always want to do the work to disprove the positions (though I often do) that I know they can not defend. I want them to up their game to defend themselves and learn in the process.

They, or I, might learn something if they can produce some type of evidence to defend their statements.
 
Last edited:
I do agree. Well done!

However, I do not like lazy posters that state impressions as fact and can not support them. Especially when those impressions are simply off the wall and thus somewhat offensive, as was the case with the poster I challenged. I am not a lazy poster (if you read my posts you would see they are generally well supported), but I don't always want to do the work to disprove the positions (though I often do) that I know they can not defend. I want them to up their game to defend themselves and learn in the process.

They, or I, might learn something if they can produce some type of evidence to defend their statements.

I think it's okay to be "lazy poster," provided one limits the nature and extent of one's remarks to assertions that need not be supported.

Failing to do that is part of, indeed a major part of, the objections I have to Donald Trump being POTUS. The man simply hasn't the basic integrity or perspicacity (either one will do) to simply keep mum rather than make remarks that cannot withstand rigorous scrutiny. Almost daily, (maybe actually daily; I don't watch his tweets that closely) the man makes remarks that were he to have stopped at a certain point, I'd have been just fine with the remark, but insofar as he didn't and he, like everyone else, must be held accountable for the entirety of what he says, the man says just way, way too much with which I take exception. To wit, notice the following remarks -- I've highlighted in red the bits that had he left them out, I'd not take exception with the remark:
  • The Fake News is working overtime. Just reported that, despite the tremendous success we are having with the economy & all things else, 91% of the Network News about me is negative (Fake). Why do we work so hard in working with the media when it is corrupt? (Source)
    • "Tremendous success at... all things else" -- Say what? No, they have not had tremendous success at all things other than the economy. Their having had success with the economy is debatable, but I wouldn't make a stink about it insofar as they haven't ruined the gains the U.S. economy had begun long before Trump's cabal became its ostensible steward.
    • "Fake" being equated with "negative" -- Hell, no! The two words are not remotely synonymous.
    • 91% -- I'm not sure that 91% of the news about him is negative, but I suspect it's very likely so that he construes 91% of the news as negative because it discloses information that he'd rather not have shared. For example:
      • Not negative because it merely states facts --> "Trump said that he didn't know 'such and such;' however, we now know that he was lying when he said he didn't know 'such and such.'"
      • Negative because it applies a qualitative judgment unrelated to any concurrently facts that show the judgment to be meritied --> "Rely on what Trump says at one's peril."
    • [The media] is corrupt --> This is a qualitative assertion that Trump has, since 2015 (?), done nothing but claim to be true, but about which that he's never put forth sound/cogent case showing it to be factually and contextually true.
 
Wide Gender Gap, Growing Educational Divide in Voters’ Party Identification

We've already had facts from other elections which prove that in some elections, more uneducated vote for Republicans and in some elections more uneducated vote for Democrats. As usual, your side cherry picks the information which proves your side. Evidence shows that it is actually 50/50, depending on which election you want to cherry pick.

Pew Research Center, MARCH 20, 2018

As the 2018 midterm elections approach, women and especially college graduates have moved toward the Democratic Party. By contrast, the Republican Party’s advantage in leaned party identification among white voters without a college degree has never been greater, dating back more than two decades...

Voters who have completed college make up a third of all registered voters. And a majority of all voters with at least a four-year college degree (58%) now identify as Democrats or lean Democratic, the highest share dating back to 1992. Just 36% affiliate with the Republican Party or lean toward the GOP. The much larger group of voters who do not have a four-year degree is more evenly divided in partisan affiliation. And voters with no college experience have been moving toward the GOP: 47% identify with or lean toward the Republican Party, up from 42% in 2014.
Wide Gender Gap, Growing Educational Divide in Voters? Party Identification | Pew Research Center
 
Re: Wide Gender Gap, Growing Educational Divide in Voters’ Party Identification

Pew Research Center, MARCH 20, 2018

As the 2018 midterm elections approach, women and especially college graduates have moved toward the Democratic Party. By contrast, the Republican Party’s advantage in leaned party identification among white voters without a college degree has never been greater, dating back more than two decades...

Voters who have completed college make up a third of all registered voters. And a majority of all voters with at least a four-year college degree (58%) now identify as Democrats or lean Democratic, the highest share dating back to 1992. Just 36% affiliate with the Republican Party or lean toward the GOP. The much larger group of voters who do not have a four-year degree is more evenly divided in partisan affiliation. And voters with no college experience have been moving toward the GOP: 47% identify with or lean toward the Republican Party, up from 42% in 2014.
Wide Gender Gap, Growing Educational Divide in Voters? Party Identification | Pew Research Center

Wow, that's three studies that addressed the matter of education levels and partisanship -- the two I cited earlier in the thread and now yours -- and each of them reveals the trend of more educated folks gravitating to the Democratic party.

From the 2018 study:

1_3.png

Same analytical presentation from an earlier and later iterations of the study:

Four charts from 2014

4-6-2015_04.png


4-6-2015_05.png


Similar charts in one image (2018)


2_6.png


2_7.png
 
Last edited:
Re: Wide Gender Gap, Growing Educational Divide in Voters’ Party Identification

Pew Research Center, MARCH 20, 2018

As the 2018 midterm elections approach, women and especially college graduates have moved toward the Democratic Party. By contrast, the Republican Party’s advantage in leaned party identification among white voters without a college degree has never been greater, dating back more than two decades...

Voters who have completed college make up a third of all registered voters. And a majority of all voters with at least a four-year college degree (58%) now identify as Democrats or lean Democratic, the highest share dating back to 1992. Just 36% affiliate with the Republican Party or lean toward the GOP. The much larger group of voters who do not have a four-year degree is more evenly divided in partisan affiliation. And voters with no college experience have been moving toward the GOP: 47% identify with or lean toward the Republican Party, up from 42% in 2014.
Wide Gender Gap, Growing Educational Divide in Voters? Party Identification | Pew Research Center

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. As of 2016 the Republican party was dead and would never be heard from again due to changing demographics. There has already been stories recently showing that millenials can't be counted on as much as previously thought to support Democrats in the midterms.
 
Re: Wide Gender Gap, Growing Educational Divide in Voters’ Party Identification

2_6.png
4-6-2015_04.png



It appears from the above that "leaners" from 2014 have made up their minds.
 
Back
Top Bottom