Time Magazine says Jacksonville . . .

[Adam White]

^^^I totally agree!

The Democratic Party is also the party of the educated, it would seem. I guess it makes sense that cities skew Democratic, then.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/03/21/as-americans-become-more-educated-the-gop-is-moving-in-the-opposite-direction/?utm_term=.5921b2a2de07

I wouldn't call the WaPo an unbiased paper, and many agree with me. Technically are Democrats more educated the Republicans percentage-wise? Yes. Does that automatically mean the Democrats are smarter on average? IMO not at all, and there are a variety of reasons why.

As said above, college isn't what it used to be. Now the overwhelming majority of college is about feelings, avoiding micro-aggressions, social justice, and ultimately leftist indoctrination. Many people have BS degrees involving social justice, gender studies, varying histories etc (stuff that translate little to the real world) Leftism is all about following the flock of the herd mentality like "man made carbon dioxide climate change being an absolute 100 percent truth, and anyone disagree is a heretic worthy of a gulag!!!

Explain why from 1940 to 1975 the world's temp was going DOWN throughout the Post war economic boom (the entire world was a giant industry smokestack belching the supposedly "poisonous and useless" Co2)?  There are alot of other major fallacies with supposed GOD ALMIGHTY'S WORD climate change (like with the ice cores) that I'm not gonna even go into. I'm willing to debate science, and all of the Al Gore liberals wanna close down the conversation. Yall ignore the most POWERFUL thing I can think of THE SUN, and talk about something that's essential to life as being bad.

I only brought up climate change as an example of the powerful monolithic thought that must be abided by (as well as many other things in college, like minorities are rightful victims of everything). Many conservatives go into blue collar jobs, first starting of in trade schools, auto repair, HVAC jobs etc etc; many successful people out there despite being supposedly 'uneducated".

Colleges continue to go more and more leftward, and many people don't wanna (or have to reluctantly) put up with that walking on eggshells, easily offended pernicious BS. Some of the most successful people in the world (even in Silicon Valley) didn't attend college. The current 'less importanceness' of college these days is well documented; people with alot of debt and a good degree working at somewhere like Walmart is prevalent today.

A few things:

1) The paper was reporting on studies. This isn't stuff that paper made up - it's been reported in many papers. So while you may find the WaPo to be biased, that's kind of a red herring here.

2) It's funny that you can tell people what college is like now. You (as I recall) didn't attend college - so you have no idea what a) it "was" like and b) what it "is" like.

3) Even if college has changed somehow, that doesn't explain the results, as it relates to all voting age groups. Younger people are less likely to vote, so if they are somehow being affected by how college has "changed," then we'll likely really see this manifest itself more and more over the coming years.

4) Anthropogenic climate change is settled science. Over 95% of scientists are in consensus. I'm not going to try to argue about whether or not it's a thing, because a) I am unqualified, due to holding an undergraduate liberal arts degree and b) you don't (again, to my knowledge) have any sort of post-secondary education. I think it's best to leave this to the people who actually know what they're talking about - and they overwhelmingly agree it's an issue. But any yahoo can go on the internet and find his own "evidence" to support his point of view and give it equal weight - especially when he doesn't understand the science behind it.

[Kerry]

College isn't what it used to be because...well...because it isn't.  30 years ago college was a 4 year institution with a campus.  Now college can be nothing more than a laptop.  I attended the University of Miami College of Architecture and never left Jax.  College also now includes nursing schools and countless for-profit institutions.  You ever look at the ethnic makeup of a nursing school?  Nursing school is NOT the University of Florida, but gets counted the same.

The availability of majors has grown exponentially, with many degree programs available that didn't even exist 20 years ago.  CNN had a documentary a few ago called Ivory Tower which did a pretty good job at demonstrating how worthless many colleges, and many majors, are. One would be better off just buying a degree on-line.

[Adam White]

College isn't what it used to be because...well...because it isn't.  30 years ago college was a 4 year institution with a campus.  Now college can be nothing more than a laptop.  I attended the University of Miami College of Architecture and never left Jax.  College also now includes nursing schools and countless for-profit institutions.  You ever look at the ethnic makeup of a nursing school?  Nursing school is NOT the University of Florida, but gets counted the same.

The availability of majors has grown exponentially, with many degree programs available that didn't even exist 20 years ago.  CNN had a documentary a few ago called Ivory Tower which did a pretty good job at demonstrating how worthless many colleges, and many majors, are. One would be better off just buying a degree on-line.

College can be what it used to be - but it depends on what you're studying. Also - college isn't what it used to be, because it used to be almost a guarantor of a decent-paying job and career. The world has changed and college isn't as important. Also - it's open to far more people than before. College used to be reserved for white people of decent means.

There could be any number of reasons why more education correlates with more liberal voting practices (or at least with voting Democratic). It may even be a combination of factors. I doubt there is any way to know exactly why it is the case (as they always say, correlation doesn't equal causation).

[Kerry]

I don't think it is a case of a person getting educated and then becoming a Democrat as a result, as much as it is uneducated Democrats becoming educated.

[KenFSU]

I don't think it is a case of a person getting educated and then becoming a Democrat as a result, as much as it is uneducated Democrats becoming educated.

I think it's a lot more complicated than this. The shift in politicial affiliation for college graduates isn't the result of increased access to education for minorities/low-income families.

The data just doesn't back that up.

First, the shift toward the left is present in graduates of all races, including whites.

Secondly, reading the study, this is less of a 25-year shift, and more of a three-year shift. Citizens with graduate degrees are 24% more likely to identify as Democrat now than they were in 2015. Similarly, in 2015, white college graduates leaned Republican 49% to 46%, and just three years later, they lean Democrat 51% to 43%.

These are huge shifts in just three years, not gradual shifts over the course of decades resulting from increased availability of higher education.

Meanwhile, on the other end of the education spectrum, we've seen an explosion in non-educated white citizens supporting the GOP, going from an even split less than a decade ago, to 58-35% last year.

To me, I think the more obvious answer is that the GOP has alienated a lot of educated supporters in a historically short amount of time. It's not elitist to suggest that, in general, college educated adults display better critical thinking and increased tolerance versus those with lesser education. In the last month alone, GOP leadership has openly dismissed scientific reports from the UN and our own government on the threat of global climate change, and dismissed the CIA's report on Saudi Arabia's involvement with the Khashoggi murder. Educated people better see through lies, whether they're from the Clintons, the Bushes, or the Trumps. And, even the most diehard Republican has to admit that current leadership hasn't exactly been warm toward women, minorities, legal immigrants, and the LGBTQ community.

And on the other end, I think we're seeing those without college degrees swing wildly to the right in the last nine years out of fear that 1) immigrants are coming to take their jobs and 2) democrats are coming to take their money. When you're living hand to mouth and you're worried that an undocumented immigrant is going to take your job at half the salary, the Mueller investigation (justifiably) isn't going to be on the top of your priority list.

The data also points to the fact that the idea of political identity has become a lot more fluid in the information age than it has been in the past. Most of our parents have probably loyally identified with one political party for the majority of their lives. Keynes has been (falsely) credited with the quote, "When the facts change, so does my opinion," and I think these sudden shifts echo this same mentality. I think post-9/11 George W Bush turned a lot of fringe-Republicans into Obama-supporters. I think late-Obama turned a lot of fringe Democrats into Trump-supporters. And I think current Trump is rapidly alienating the fringe-right (though based on the mid-term election, far less than I thought).

I blame the archaic two-party system that leads to such studies where American adults with insanely different backgrounds, social views, financial situations, and priorities are forced to bucket themselves neatly into two binary categories, often in a "lesser of two evils" type of way.

If the Dems get themselves a dud in office in 2020 or 2024 and the Republicans ease up on the hate and falsification of facts in the interim, we'll likely see another yo-yo to these stats next decade.

[Steve]

College isn't what it used to be because...well...because it isn't.  30 years ago college was a 4 year institution with a campus.  Now college can be nothing more than a laptop.  I attended the University of Miami College of Architecture and never left Jax.  College also now includes nursing schools and countless for-profit institutions.  You ever look at the ethnic makeup of a nursing school?  Nursing school is NOT the University of Florida, but gets counted the same.

The availability of majors has grown exponentially, with many degree programs available that didn't even exist 20 years ago.  CNN had a documentary a few ago called Ivory Tower which did a pretty good job at demonstrating how worthless many colleges, and many majors, are. One would be better off just buying a degree on-line.

I sort of see what you're driving at here (or maybe this wasn't your point and I just thought this).

To Adam's point, college can be what it used to be but it doesn't have to. While I have a new-ish degree (Computer Science) I went to a traditional college where I lived on campus, and I'm the exception in that I actually use my degree in my job (sort of).

More and more people today can check the box "college educated" on a demographics form. College is infinitely more accessible to the general public than it used to be and while I do think that causes some problems (such as ridiculous degrees, overcrowding, people that frankly shouldn't be in college but Mommy and Daddy push them there), the good of that out weights the bad in my opinion.

So, is it that:

1. College is "making people liberal?"
2. These people would have been liberal 50 years ago but just wouldn't have been to college?
3. People with College degrees are seeing through some of the GOP's nonsense?
4. Something else?

It's likely not one thing.

Full disclosure: I tend to be a Moderate Republican, but the 2016 presidential election was the first time I didn't vote for the Republican Candidate for President. For me, I guess I'm #3 above.

[Steve]

If the Dems get themselves a dud in office in 2020 or 2024 and the Republicans ease up on the hate and falsification of facts in the interim, we'll likely see another yo-yo to these stats next decade.

Agree 100% here.

[Kerry]

I hate talking in percentages because without real number they are meaningless.  Anyhow, we aren't going to solve this riddle via the internet.  As stated by others, there is more at play then a simple one-size fits all answer for every person but I still believe a large part is that people who were most likely to identify as Democrat regardless of educational attainment are now moving up the education ladder.  I guess we can debate all day long if it is in fact a ladder, stairs, a slightly sloping ramp, or just a flat surface with a new name.

[Adam White]

College isn't what it used to be because...well...because it isn't.  30 years ago college was a 4 year institution with a campus.  Now college can be nothing more than a laptop.  I attended the University of Miami College of Architecture and never left Jax.  College also now includes nursing schools and countless for-profit institutions.  You ever look at the ethnic makeup of a nursing school?  Nursing school is NOT the University of Florida, but gets counted the same.

The availability of majors has grown exponentially, with many degree programs available that didn't even exist 20 years ago.  CNN had a documentary a few ago called Ivory Tower which did a pretty good job at demonstrating how worthless many colleges, and many majors, are. One would be better off just buying a degree on-line.

I sort of see what you're driving at here (or maybe this wasn't your point and I just thought this).

To Adam's point, college can be what it used to be but it doesn't have to. While I have a new-ish degree (Computer Science) I went to a traditional college where I lived on campus, and I'm the exception in that I actually use my degree in my job (sort of).

More and more people today can check the box "college educated" on a demographics form. College is infinitely more accessible to the general public than it used to be and while I do think that causes some problems (such as ridiculous degrees, overcrowding, people that frankly shouldn't be in college but Mommy and Daddy push them there), the good of that out weights the bad in my opinion.

So, is it that:

1. College is "making people liberal?"
2. These people would have been liberal 50 years ago but just wouldn't have been to college?
3. People with College degrees are seeing through some of the GOP's nonsense?
4. Something else?

It's likely not one thing.

Full disclosure: I tend to be a Moderate Republican, but the 2016 presidential election was the first time I didn't vote for the Republican Candidate for President. For me, I guess I'm #3 above.

I am not sure of the causes. It may be that a good economist or statistician or whatever could tease out the cause(s). But, just like with climate change, I am not really qualified to say.

I have my ideas, but I wouldn't be so arrogant (or deluded) as to assume I am correct or not appreciate that my ideas may be influenced by my own particular political outlook.

[I-10east]

A few things:

1) The paper was reporting on studies. This isn't stuff that paper made up - it's been reported in many papers. So while you may find the WaPo to be biased, that's kind of a red herring here.

2) It's funny that you can tell people what college is like now. You (as I recall) didn't attend college - so you have no idea what a) it "was" like and b) what it "is" like.

3) Even if college has changed somehow, that doesn't explain the results, as it relates to all voting age groups. Younger people are less likely to vote, so if they are somehow being affected by how college has "changed," then we'll likely really see this manifest itself more and more over the coming years.

4) Anthropogenic climate change is settled science. Over 95% of scientists are in consensus. I'm not going to try to argue about whether or not it's a thing, because a) I am unqualified, due to holding an undergraduate liberal arts degree and b) you don't (again, to my knowledge) have any sort of post-secondary education. I think it's best to leave this to the people who actually know what they're talking about - and they overwhelmingly agree it's an issue. But any yahoo can go on the internet and find his own "evidence" to support his point of view and give it equal weight - especially when he doesn't understand the science behind it.

Sorry for commenting so late Adam.

1) Just be careful with using WaPo as a reliable source. Because when I use factual info from a site (that's not some multinational liberal conglomerate) it's automatically dismissed; welcome to my world. 

2) I did some college at Jones College. Yes it's defunct, and no it wasn't the Ivy league, but I did some classes there. No it wasn't all libtarded out (the early 2000's a different era that I wish those sane times could return). 

3) Not only college has changed, the whole paradigm shift has taken place. In the Western World, everything has shifted to the left over the last couple of decades. Look at Fox News for chrissakes, they are basically a half conservative half liberal station. You have to be inside a cave somewhere on an island to not realize that. 

4) Look at "The Great Global Warming Swindle" on youtube; my mind was already made up before watching it, and it just was the cherry on top. Some of those supposed "95 percent of scientists" do not vouch for the IRCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and name's are added anyway. One scientist even threatened to sue the IRCC to take their name off the list. Bottomline, me and you agree that the environment should be clean, we just disagree on how it should be done. You seemingly think that some globalist bureaucratic system (like the Paris climate accord) should tell the UK, US etc how to go about running their countries.

[Adam White]

Hi I-10 no worries, I assumed you'd been away. Hadn't seen you commenting lately.

1) I get what you mean about WaPo. As a general rule, I try to verify stories (or at least ones that seem contentious) from more than one source. However, it can sometimes mean that all the different news outlets got their info from the same, flawed source. That happens a lot with 'fake news' - and I don't mean 'fake news' in the political sense. I mean stories about someone in China doing something really ridiculous. Snopes is full of that stuff.

2) Apologies for my assumptions.

3) I would just say that colleges and universities have always had activism on campus (at least back to the 60s) and what we're seeing today reminds me a lot of the way it was in the late 80s/early 90s (as parodied in PCU). I think the main difference is a combination of the 24 hour news cycle and the explosion of social media. This amplifies minor stories and makes them seem far more important and widespread. An example of this would be the hysteria over Ebola in the USA.

4) I'm not going to watch that on YouTube. All I can say is that over 95% of scientists are in agreement about AGW and while there may be a scientist or two who disagrees with his name being attached to a list, they are outliers and not indicative of what is essentially settled science.

Regarding Paris and Kyoto, I think they are flawed and don't go far enough. But for me, it's not about a "globalist bureaucratic system" and is more about people need to get together and sort this out. Seriously. We're fucked if we don't do something NOW. And this is going to be just like the Iraq war - a bunch of willfully ignorant types will admit the error of their ways in 20 years, but by then it will be too late.

[BridgeTroll]

Ah... the "settled science" debate...lol.  Seems to me those who have settled it have a ready made excuse for not "getting something done now".  That excuse being perhaps 10% - 25% of the planet who deny the anthropomorphic warming are somehow holding the remaining 75% of humanity back from saving itself...  Sorry but placing global inaction on a tiny minority is laughable...

The reality is... that the "solutions" are so radical and painful even those who have been believers for years are unwilling to do what is required.  Why?  The lifestyle changes are too dramatic... the sacrifice is too great, and the monetary cost is too high...

So........ blame the republicans... rofl...

[Adam White]

Ah... the "settled science" debate...lol.  Seems to me those who have settled it have a ready made excuse for not "getting something done now".  That excuse being perhaps 10% - 25% of the planet who deny the anthropomorphic warming are somehow holding the remaining 75% of humanity back from saving itself...  Sorry but placing global inaction on a tiny minority is laughable...

The reality is... that the "solutions" are so radical and painful even those who have been believers for years are unwilling to do what is required.  Why?  The lifestyle changes are too dramatic... the sacrifice is too great, and the monetary cost is too high...

So........ blame the republicans... rofl...

You have a remarkable ability to read things that were never typed.

I don't think that fixing the issue necessarily requires the buy-in of those who deny AGW (though they are doing their best to help make it difficult by spreading lies and stupid conspiracy theories). My point is that some people are pinning their hopes on a grand conspiracy theory and will do what they can to spread falsehoods about a very real issue. And then will expect all to be forgiven when they finally realise the truth.

I never blamed the Republicans and I'd like you to point out where I did. I don't think the Republicans or Democrats (or the Tories, Labour, Liberal Democrats, etc) have the solution or the will to make it happen. Some of them talk a good game, but will likely balk when faced with trying to put their talk into action - because the political costs would be too high.

[BridgeTroll]

Ah... the "settled science" debate...lol.  Seems to me those who have settled it have a ready made excuse for not "getting something done now".  That excuse being perhaps 10% - 25% of the planet who deny the anthropomorphic warming are somehow holding the remaining 75% of humanity back from saving itself...  Sorry but placing global inaction on a tiny minority is laughable...

The reality is... that the "solutions" are so radical and painful even those who have been believers for years are unwilling to do what is required.  Why?  The lifestyle changes are too dramatic... the sacrifice is too great, and the monetary cost is too high...

So........ blame the republicans... rofl...

You have a remarkable ability to read things that were never typed.

I don't think that fixing the issue necessarily requires the buy-in of those who deny AGW (though they are doing their best to help make it difficult by spreading lies and stupid conspiracy theories). My point is that some people are pinning their hopes on a grand conspiracy theory and will do what they can to spread falsehoods about a very real issue. And then will expect all to be forgiven when they finally realise the truth.

I never blamed the Republicans and I'd like you to point out where I did. I don't think the Republicans or Democrats (or the Tories, Labour, Liberal Democrats, etc) have the solution or the will to make it happen. Some of them talk a good game, but will likely balk when faced with trying to put their talk into action - because the political costs would be too high.

I was not "blaming" you... simply scoffing at the settled science argument.  I suppose it is... apparently no one really cares... because my real point was just as you say... "Some of them talk a good game, but will likely balk when faced with trying to put their talk into action - because the political costs would be too high."

[Adam White]

Ah... the "settled science" debate...lol.  Seems to me those who have settled it have a ready made excuse for not "getting something done now".  That excuse being perhaps 10% - 25% of the planet who deny the anthropomorphic warming are somehow holding the remaining 75% of humanity back from saving itself...  Sorry but placing global inaction on a tiny minority is laughable...

The reality is... that the "solutions" are so radical and painful even those who have been believers for years are unwilling to do what is required.  Why?  The lifestyle changes are too dramatic... the sacrifice is too great, and the monetary cost is too high...

So........ blame the republicans... rofl...

You have a remarkable ability to read things that were never typed.

I don't think that fixing the issue necessarily requires the buy-in of those who deny AGW (though they are doing their best to help make it difficult by spreading lies and stupid conspiracy theories). My point is that some people are pinning their hopes on a grand conspiracy theory and will do what they can to spread falsehoods about a very real issue. And then will expect all to be forgiven when they finally realise the truth.

I never blamed the Republicans and I'd like you to point out where I did. I don't think the Republicans or Democrats (or the Tories, Labour, Liberal Democrats, etc) have the solution or the will to make it happen. Some of them talk a good game, but will likely balk when faced with trying to put their talk into action - because the political costs would be too high.

I was not "blaming" you... simply scoffing at the settled science argument.  I suppose it is... apparently no one really cares... because my real point was just as you say... "Some of them talk a good game, but will likely balk when faced with trying to put their talk into action - because the political costs would be too high."

It would appear that the scientists consider it settled. But the problem is politicians. There is always the hope that there will arise some sort of free market solution that gains traction. I remember reading a thing about this in Super Freakonomics. They mentioned different types of geoengineering. Unfortunately, the conspiracy theory types see geoengineering as some sort of World Government/NWO/Illuminati attempt at mind control or similar.