# Blue states smarter than red states? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [January 20, 2012, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blue-states-smarter-than-red-states/610127 "2012-01-20T14:04:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![66Scorpio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/6/b5ac83/32.png) [@66Scorpio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/66Scorpio)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blue-states-smarter-than-red-states/610127/81 "2012-02-13T14:24:32Z")
> [@Toilet\_Bowels](#): > > I’ve often wondered if there is greater correlation between emotional intelligence (or ability to empathise, etc) in whether people vote left or right, I would have thought there’s some likelihood that higher EI = more left, I guess it is in how you define EI. If you define it in practical terms, as in how to interact with other humans, I suppose conservatives would have the edge: why do felons almost universally prefer Democrats? As I posted elsewhere, the GOP support is in the centre of bell curve while the Dems get the brightest and dullest. Is this a suggestion that the brightest are manipulating the dullest for their own political ends? Debatable. ---
**Author:** ![66Scorpio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/6/b5ac83/32.png) [@66Scorpio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/66Scorpio)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blue-states-smarter-than-red-states/610127/82 "2012-02-13T15:01:43Z")
> [@delius1967](#): > > Here’s a point that seems to be missing in this discussion: talking about the relative intelligence of red and blues states is utterly missing the point. It isn’t really about whether blue or red states are smarter, it is whether liberal or conservative people are smarter. . . . > The first assumption is that conservative/liberal maps well to Republican/Democrat, _i.e._ red/blue. I’m not convinced that that correlation holds up that well in general, and particularly not with respect to intelligent people. Even those who identify with one of the major political parties should be less likely to simply tow the party line, by virtue of their superior reasoning ability. I think that was part of Cecil’s point: states with lots of swing voters - independent voters - had a noticable margin in the IQ department. One might think that this mindset would show the same pattern among committed Republicans and Democrats. > [@](#): > > (Actually, I think _really_ intelligent people tend to be Libertarian; the fact that I am is, of course, totally unrelated to the truth of that statement. Since there has never been a viable Libertarian candidate for president, these people will generally vote for whichever of the major parties’ candidate seems less odious, making the correlation between vote counts and intelligence that much more tenuous.) Libertarians tend to be well-to-do but somewhat non-social, if I am not putting it too harsh. The former is evidence of higher intelligence while the latter, not so much.They can also be ridiculously naive in matters of foreign policy, which throws common sense out the window. > [@](#): > > That’s the first problem with the red/blue approximation. The second one is, if we grant that there is an exact correlation between the parties and the ideologies, what does mean for a state to be “red” or “blue”? Even states that are heavily biased one way or the other have a significant fraction of the other side. I agree that the basic premise of the article and thread are sort of unanswerable and you have to look at the polity as a whole. > [@](#): > > The third problem is that there is a set of people who vote, and a set of people who take intelligence tests, and these two sets are _not_ the same. Is there an intelligence skew for those who vote versus those who don’t, or conversely, an ideological skew for those who tend to take intelligence tests (not necessarily do well on them, just take them)? And if so, what is it? I don’t have it at my fingertips but studies tend to show a corelation between education levels and voter turnout. You can take that as a proxy for intelligence to conclude that smart people will vote. However, if one assumes this, what of states that have lots of dumb people and a few smart people? The smart people would carry the day but the state as a whole would clock in as being dumb for supporting the winning candidate. > [@](#): > > I’ve never voted, and never will. Well, you are an idiot in these matters. Pick a third party candidate or spoil your ballot or whatever. It is your god-given right to have a say and it is your birthright bought with the blood of your ancestors: do it. If you think you could do a better job, then why don’t you run? In university I ran for some mickey mouse student positions and lost lost in a trifecta of unreasonableness on my classmates behalf 🙂 What galled me is some activist complaining about the results: 3 white males. I called to her across the classroom: “You could have run” > [@](#): > > My perception is that the differences between the candidates and parties are miniscule to the point of non-existence. Your observations are not shared by at least 60% of Americans (those who identify with the two major parties) and up to 90% or more who don’t identify as libertarians. Perhaps you think that you are part of the cognitive elite and see things that others don’t, but you should not be too sure of that. > [@](#): > > Also, despite encouraging cries of “every vote counts”, I think what the 2000 election showed us is that there is enough inherent sloppiness in the process that a given individual’s vote is basically meaningless: in any situation where the overall vote is actually close enough for individual ones to matter, both parties will resort to cheap legal maneuvering to get what they want rather than honestly seek the truth. Let’s be fair here: it was the Democrats, the liberals, who resorted to the courts, as they do on every significant public policy debate they don’t win by support from the citizenry. > [@](#): > > There is too much at stake (for the political parties, anyway) for them to do otherwise. In other words, I’m postulating that higher intelligence will generally correlate to a lowered likelihood of voting, since a smarter person is much more likely to see how pointless the process really is. Your postulate does not conform with the evidence and the numerous studies that have examined it. > [@](#): > > Just for fun I put some numbers together. Suppose that people holding Ideology X average 100 points of IQ, whereas those holding Ideology Y only average 90. Suppose further that we have two states, one of which voted 55% for X’ (the candidate nominally associated with X) and 45% for Y’, and the other, the reverse. Doing the calculations, the first state will have an average intelligence of 95.5%, and the second, 94.5%. That 10-point difference virtually disappears in the wash. That’s why I look at things like exit polls, which can tease our that information, with some surprising results. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blue-states-smarter-than-red-states/610127/83 "2012-02-13T15:08:21Z")
> [@66Scorpio](#): > > Democrats do disproportionately well among post-graduates \*\*\*and \*\*\*high school drop outs. Republicans get their support from high school graduates, and those with some college (despite the student vote tending to go to the Dems). It’s pretty much a wash among those with a 4 year degree. This presumes that all college degrees are equal, when enrollment at private religious colleges that deny science (global warming, evolution) are overwhelmingly conservative. So to say those graduates who are willfully ignorant are as smart as liberals who attended public universities is not a fair comparison. ---
**Author:** ![66Scorpio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/6/b5ac83/32.png) [@66Scorpio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/66Scorpio)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blue-states-smarter-than-red-states/610127/84 "2012-02-13T15:13:02Z")
> [@Powers](#): > > Utter nonsense. There are more than enough conservative media outlets, politicians, think tanks, and just general public around to make the conservative case. > > The real problem is that liberals just don’t _like_ to think about the fact that there are people out there who think evolution is a myth but the Bible isn’t. > Powers &8^] There are various definitions of “group think” but one is that if you and all the people you interact with hold the same views, you incorrectly assume that everyone holds those views. That is certainly a problem on the left rather than the right. You get people cloistered in academia, unionized public service, the judiciary, the main stream media and such, and they all agree they they know best and those who disagree must be deluded or evil or something. People on the right are exposed to leftist nonsense all the time and have retreated to less-flashy media like talk radio and the internet. Fox network, being an exception, is the target of all other main stream media. Here in Canada, when the Conservatives took power, leftist everywhere were asking “How could this happen; I don’t know anyone who voted for them!” More recently, a senator inadvertenly reignited the death penalty debate. The leftist opposition leader denounced him as being out of step with Canadian values, and shortly after a poll revealed that 63% of us would support the death penalty. Obviously, the leftist was out of touch with public sentiment, probably because all the people she hangs will are similar ideologues rather than thinking people. ---
**Author:** ![66Scorpio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/6/b5ac83/32.png) [@66Scorpio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/66Scorpio)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blue-states-smarter-than-red-states/610127/85 "2012-02-13T15:22:38Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > I wish people wouldn’t keep falling into the same mistakes every time this type of discussion comes up. > > One can be close-minded to falsehoods and still be intelligent. Its unavoidable that there are at least 2 sides to this, but to hear people say both sides are equally close-minded and dumb belies the fact that for certain things, there is one set of unambiguous facts. One is not dumb is one refuses to consider the idea that 1+1=5. So too with things like global warming and evolution, whose evidence for it is astounding. And if one wants to be against religion, I don’t consider that dumb because religion is an unfalsifiable series of myths > > In some things, sure, there are people stupid on both sides. But not everything There is the general idea that just because there are two sides to the debate, that doesn’t make each side equally valid or compelling or what have you. However, your choice of examples shows your bias. To properly debate the matters, you would have to define your terms but - without definition - I would say that evolution is on pretty solid grounds while AGW is political piffle passing as science. Liberals are at least as close minded as conservatives on those issue that they declare to be sacred cows, AGW included. They do not accept ambiguity well, they make simplistic assertions, they require closure on issues, etc etc. In other words, all of the pathologies that liberals and their academic stooges like to assign to conservatives and well and alive in their own minds: the fact that they don’t see it only makes their convictions stronger. ---
**Author:** ![66Scorpio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/6/b5ac83/32.png) [@66Scorpio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/66Scorpio)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blue-states-smarter-than-red-states/610127/86 "2012-02-13T15:30:50Z")
> [@Zaklog](#): > > And regarding the link you initially put up, my participation in this discussion was initially about the SD column, and I hadn’t earlier read it, not because I didn’t want to deal with facts that contradicted my ideas, but because it wasn’t what I was most interested in jumping in. > > I did just read it, and all I can say is I find it . . . disturbing. I can say I don’t think the specifics apply to me. I don’t watch Fox News (which that was primarily about), but that’s mostly because I don’t watch TV news in general. I consider it superficial and, regardless of political ideology, driven by stylistic needs which don’t have anything to do with genuine importance. When I do keep up with current events, it’s usually by way of NPR (not noted for its conservative bent). But, yes, that is . . . disturbing. > > I’d like to say more right now, but my seven-month-old is being a bit demanding for attention at the moment. I’m a Canadian and now I watch Sun News which was accused of being Fox North and many leftists wanted it banned altogether (but hey, Al Jezhira was cool). I simply find it easier to back check the ridiculous claims of this unabashedly right wing network than to back check - and prove wrong - most assertions of the left-leaning media who pose as centrists. Guess what? I am a centrist! ---
**Author:** ![66Scorpio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/6/b5ac83/32.png) [@66Scorpio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/66Scorpio)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blue-states-smarter-than-red-states/610127/87 "2012-02-13T15:37:15Z")
> [@a35362](#): > > Shouldn’t Christians be socially liberal anyway? 😕 I am not a Christian, so maybe someone will back me up on this: Fiscally, Christians believe in private charity over government tax and spend. While one should “render unto Ceaser” that is not a biblical license to take over the whole economy. You would have to define “socially liberal” in better terms, and separate it from it’s fiscal incarnations. Otherwise, pick social topics that are “liberal” and the balance of Christian doctrine and literature would be against it. ---
**Author:** ![66Scorpio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/6/b5ac83/32.png) [@66Scorpio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/66Scorpio)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blue-states-smarter-than-red-states/610127/88 "2012-02-13T15:42:59Z")
> [@Zaklog](#): > > ^ Riverrunner, yes, I think that’s a pretty good explanation of the main opinions. For myself, yes, against abortion, against legalized prostitution (although I do see possible arguments for it), capital punishment, I’m not against it in theory, but there are serious problems with its application in the U.S., so no clear opinion. I largely agree with you. ---
**Author:** ![66Scorpio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/6/b5ac83/32.png) [@66Scorpio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/66Scorpio)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blue-states-smarter-than-red-states/610127/89 "2012-02-13T15:56:36Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > Apologies for staying off topic… > > A [few](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_homosexuality#Africa) are listed on [wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#History). Worth noting the Native American custom of “two-spirits”, so gay marriage is an older tradition in the US than Christian marriage. A homosexual union was never a “marriage”. It’s simply not the same thing. Cite me chapter and verse where gays were “married” rather than “joined” or whatever, and I will back off. Otherwise, marriage has been a distinctly heterosexual institution from time immemorial. > [@](#): > > ACLU doesn’t distinguish between their right to free speech and anyone else’s. In fact, they’ve even advocated for corporate free speech. Show me a list of how many cases they have quarterbacked that used the first amedment to shut religion out of the public square, and those that defended religion against the government. My guess it isn’t close to a 1 to 1 ratio. ---
**Author:** ![66Scorpio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/6/b5ac83/32.png) [@66Scorpio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/66Scorpio)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blue-states-smarter-than-red-states/610127/90 "2012-02-13T16:03:00Z")
> [@MTrinkaus](#): > > Cecil writes this in the column: > > “McDaniel thereupon produced his own more plausible set of average state IQs, ranging from a low of 94 for Mississippi to a high of 104 for Massachusetts. At first glance numbers like that might seem to support the red-states-are-dopes hypothesis.” > > There’s a huge confounding factor that Cecil didn’t touch: race. For whatever reason, whites and Asians tend to have higher average IQ scores than blacks and Hispanics. In Massachussetts, nearly 80% of the population is white and another 5% is Asian. Compare that with Mississippi, which is nearly 40% black (the highest such percentage in the country). Given that black people, on the average, score lower on IQ tests than white people, it really shouldn’t be surprising that the state with the highest percentage of African Americans scored lowest, while one of the whitest states scored highest. And anyway, black Mississippians don’t vote Republican much, either. > > Cecil seems puzzled by California’s comparatively low IQ (96), but again racial factors can explain it: in California, Hispanic and black people together make up nearly half the state’s population. > > (To be clear, I’m NOT arguing that IQ is an infallible measure of intelligence. Far from it.) Interesting - and provocative - observation. Generally, the dull and uneducated don’t vote at all, but those who do vote Democrat. My hypothesis would be that voter turnout in southern states would be lower. I couldn’t find that info now; maybe later. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blue-states-smarter-than-red-states/610127/91 "2012-02-13T16:03:45Z")
> [@66Scorpio](#): > > Show me a list of how many cases they have quarterbacked that used the first amedment to shut religion out of the public square, and those that defended religion against the government. My guess it isn’t close to a 1 to 1 ratio. What evidence do you have that such cases are equally numerous? You’re assuming for every attack of religion on government, there’s an attack of government on religion. This is again the false balance fallacy - the assumption that all sides are always equal. What if there are 10 times as many problems with religions trying to push themselves into the public sphere than there are with government infringing on religious freedoms? Would you still then expect the ACLU - even if perfectly balanced - to have a matching number of cases from both problems? Religiosity is the default in the US - attacks on Christianity from the various governments in the US are almost non-existant despite the claims of persecution by Christians. I would suspect most of the religious freedom infringement is actually on other religions - preventing Mosques being built when there are no legal grounds to deny them for instance - and I’d imagine the ACLU does handle stuff like that. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blue-states-smarter-than-red-states/610127/92 "2012-02-13T16:06:49Z")
> [@66Scorpio](#): > > Fiscally, Christians believe in private charity over government tax and spend. Liberals believe in tax and spend; conservatives believe in borrow and spend. Which shows more fiscal responsibility? ---
**Author:** ![66Scorpio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/6/b5ac83/32.png) [@66Scorpio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/66Scorpio)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blue-states-smarter-than-red-states/610127/93 "2012-02-13T16:12:53Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > What evidence do you have that such cases are equally numerous? You’re assuming for every attack of religion on government, there’s an attack of government on religion. This is again the false balance fallacy - the assumption that all sides are always equal. > > What if there are 10 times as many problems with religions trying to push themselves into the public sphere than there are with government infringing on religious freedoms? Would you still then expect the ACLU - even if perfectly balanced - to have a matching number of cases from both problems? > > Religiosity is the default in the US - attacks on Christianity from the various governments in the US are almost non-existant despite the claims of persecution by Christians. I would suspect most of the religious freedom infringement is actually on other religions - preventing Mosques being built when there are no legal grounds to deny them for instance - and I’d imagine the ACLU does handle stuff like that. You made the original claim, mate: now defend it. I’ll get back to you when your your assertion that defies common sense has a bit of evidence behind it, ---
**Author:** ![66Scorpio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/6/b5ac83/32.png) [@66Scorpio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/66Scorpio)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blue-states-smarter-than-red-states/610127/94 "2012-02-13T16:14:25Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Liberals believe in tax and spend; conservatives believe in borrow and spend. Which shows more fiscal responsibility? Republicans, not conservatives, will borrow and spend because they don’t want to debate hard questions or make hard choices. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blue-states-smarter-than-red-states/610127/95 "2012-02-13T16:18:41Z")
> [@66Scorpio](#): > > You made the original claim, mate: now defend it. I’ll get back to you when your your assertion that defies common sense has a bit of evidence behind it, I didn’t make any claim. I’m attacking your claim that because the ACLU doesn’t have an equal number of cases defending infringement of religious freedoms from government to cases defending the public sphere against intrusion of religion, they must be biased against religion. How in the world does my claim defy common sense? Yours does. You’re saying that there is exactly the same amount of infringement on religious freedom than there is infringement upon the public by religion. What are the odds that they’re exactly equal? Religiosity has permeated US culture for a long time and it’s only recently are there people willing to stand up to it. I mean - I understand that Christians have convinced themselves that losing their priviledged status in society is persecution, but in actual practice, how many cases are there in which the rights of Christians to worship freely are infringed upon? I say Christians specifically, because other religions legitimately do face religious persecution in the US, especially Islam, and the ACLU does take on those sorts of cases. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blue-states-smarter-than-red-states/610127/96 "2012-02-13T16:20:57Z")
> [@66Scorpio](#): > > Republicans, not conservatives, will borrow and spend because they don’t want to debate hard questions or make hard choices. Neither do voters. That’s why your brand of conservatives will never be widely elected in the US. ---
**Author:** ![66Scorpio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/6/b5ac83/32.png) [@66Scorpio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/66Scorpio)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blue-states-smarter-than-red-states/610127/97 "2012-02-13T16:31:53Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > I didn’t make any claim. My bad [QUOTE=gamerunknown] ACLU doesn’t distinguish between their right to free speech and anyone else’s. [/QUOTE] But if you agree with it, then you should justiy it, even if the gamerunknown didn’t ---
**Author:** ![66Scorpio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/6/b5ac83/32.png) [@66Scorpio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/66Scorpio)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blue-states-smarter-than-red-states/610127/98 "2012-02-13T16:40:30Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Neither do voters. That’s why your brand of conservatives will never be widely elected in the US. I don’t think that you know what “my brand” of conservatives are or why you assume that I can even vote in your elections. I helped elect conservatives here in Canada and we are doing a hockey sock better than anyone in Europe and certainly better than the mighty US of A while you followed your messaiah down the drain. I don’t mean to be snippy if you are not insulting conservatives. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blue-states-smarter-than-red-states/610127/99 "2012-02-13T17:12:01Z")
> [@66Scorpio](#): > > I don’t think that you know what “my brand” of conservatives are The kind you were talking about here: > [@](#): > > Republicans, not conservatives, will borrow and spend because they don’t want to debate hard questions or make hard choices. If you didn’t mean to imply that your brand of conservatives were against borrowing and spending, I apologize. > [@](#): > > or why you assume that I can even vote in your elections. I made no such assumption; I was just pointing why such rare conservatives won’t make much headway here. > [@](#): > > I helped elect conservatives here in Canada and we are doing a hockey sock better than anyone in Europe and certainly better than the mighty US of A while you followed your messaiah down the drain. I don’t know why you assume I supported George W. Bush. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blue-states-smarter-than-red-states/610127/100 "2012-02-13T21:41:13Z")
> [@66Scorpio](#): > > But if you agree with it, then you should justiy it, even if the gamerunknown didn’t There’s a difference between and individual’s right to free speech and a government endorsement of religion. The ACLU is strongly in support of the first and against the second. I don’t know about Westboro Baptist, but the ACLU has defended white supremecists and Ku Klux Klan marches exactly on the grounds of their free speech. And I’m lost as to how this came up. The comment seemed to be about Christians and whether any of _them_ defend Westboro Baptist (the “God Hates Fags” group) on the grounds of “judge not lest ye be judged”. How did the ACLU enter the equation? I’m not aware of the ACLU being a Christian group. (It presumably has members who are christians, but christianity is not any part of the requisites for membership). > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > I don’t know why you assume I supported George W. Bush. I think he meant Obama. I don’t think anyone characterized GW as “the messiah”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blue-states-smarter-than-red-states/610127.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blue-states-smarter-than-red-states/610127.md?page=6)