No, the chart shows that the more educated people are, the more likely they are to be liberal, but this changes with income. The more money people get, the more conservative they become.
I don’t know what Dio is talking about because I can’t figure out how the chart shows that at all. Still…
I suspect the correlation there is based on income. Wealthier voters are more conservative, and income level goes up as income rises.
I would guess that the opposite is true with regard to traditional Republican *social * policies, but people vote with their wallets for the most part.
ETA: I’m quietly pleased that the Obama camp has chosen not to bother with that geographic ticket-balancing nonsense. I’m quietly sad because I suspect that they may only have chosen not to bother because of the Edwards sex scandal.
I’m quietly worried because ignoring stupid simplistic voter-appeasement areas like that is enough to lose an election. The electorate is ignorant and short-sighted, regardless of its average education level, and the smart campaign uses that to its advantage, no matter how distasteful it may be.
Of the non-Clinton possibilities he was one of the ones least likely to anger them at least. Several others had more baggage.
This indeed can be read as a peace offering to the feminist wing (given that Hillary was not going be the choice).
Got a cite for that? If it’s just your opinion, that’s fine. But I disagree.
I don’t know if the VP thing matters that much. Didn’t FDR win four terms with [edit: three] different VPs?
In 2000, Bush energized the conservative base by promising [del]to overturn Roe v. Wade[/del] to appoint anti-Roe Justices.
In 2004, Bush painted Kerry as soft on terror.
In both elections, every other issue became a footnote. It was suggested that the conservative base was re-energized in 2004 by an abundance of anti-gay marriage ballot initiatives, but the evidence is spotty.
FDR was a special case. He was a war president during a popular war; this made him effectively untouchable. He could have tipped Larry, Moe and Curly as his VP candidates and probably not lost one vote in a million for it.
1932 - 472-59 ~18 margin in popular vote
1936 - 523-8 ~24% margin in popular vote
1940 - 449-82 ~10% margin in popular vote
1944 - 432-99 ~8% margin in popular vote
The 8 and 10 per cent margins don’t sound like that much but they’re relatively huge.
I don’t know if this is the Pew link you are thinking of, as it doesn’t quite show what you are saying it does.
Both parties are made up of sub-groups which have different attitudes, income levels, and education levels. Liberals are the most highly educated (or the most highly educated are liberal?) and of course tend to vote Democratic. “Enterprisers” are also well educated but with less having graduate education and make about as much as liberals do, and are more likely to be Republican.
It does seem that both the highest and least educated gravitate Democratic.
No, that’s not the chart - that’s a fairly new analysis that tried to break down each party into sub-groups. There’s another chart that had as a dataset polling data that was the result of asking people A) their educational level, and B) how they voted. They then plotted educational levels against the likelihood of being a Republican or Democrat, and it clearly showed that as education went up, people tended to vote more Republican, but the Democrats crossed over Republicans at the Ph.D level.
My gut feeling is that the Republican data set is probably pretty evenly distributed, while the Democrats are probably pretty heavily bifurcated - with a skew at the bottom (the ‘disadvantaged democrats’), and a skew at the top (the academics). And as I recall, the numbers were actually pretty close among people who had a high school diploma, and nothing more or less. That would be your average middle American.
It’s funny that this thread has focused pretty much entirely on the effect of the Veep pick in November. I think Obama’s once again playing the long game and has made this choice based on Executive branch effectiveness from 2009 forward. And the more I consider Biden, the more pleased I am with that thinking.
It seems clear to me that the election strategy from the Obama camp continues to be two fold: 1. Stick to the narrative (change, post partisanship, candor), and more importantly, 2. The ground game wins the election. Biden can’t do anything to hurt #2, and probably supports the post partisanship part of the narrative more than he impedes the change part.
But Biden as Vice President will be able to move the Obama administration’s agenda through Congress much more effectively than any of the other favored picks could’ve hoped to - including Clinton.
I continue to be impressed with Obama’s intelligence and management skills. He may not quite have Bill Clinton’s IQ or Eisenhower’s pragmatic vision, but he’s shown definite promise as an executive planner.
This is the least predictable election in recent memory. Focusing on anything beyond the election is pretty much academic for those of us whose minds are made up (and aren’t likely to be offered a place in the Cabinet anytime soon).
Nixon picked Agnew because he was a kindred spirit, not because he could shore up any base Nixon did not already have or brought any skills or experience Nixon lacked.
I was hoping for Sebelius, but Biden is a good choice. Solid, well-established pol, no unknown quantities, safely white male.
We couldn’t agree less!
Back in February before Obama had clinched the nomination, I told colleagues this was the easiest election to call since 1972. I still predict Obama wins the popular vote by at least five percentage points.
Again, that’s an interesting opinion, but I’d call it a gross oversimplification.
That had not occurred to me. Practically every major American corporation is incorporated in Delaware; corporate litigation is actually one of the foundations of the local economy. A man who has represented Delaware in the Senate since 1973 must be very intimately acquainted with corporate America. Whether he belongs to them is another question.
Please speak up. I can barely hear you! 
Exactly. It looks like he’s chosen a Vice-President who will be especially effective as President of the Senate.
I’m watching Biden (on MSNBC) at a Rally. One thing I’ll say for him, he certainly has the fire in his belly. The guy’s nothing if not passionate.
Watching Joe right now, and I am still happy with the choice. I do like his style of speaking. I think he’ll be of some help on the ticket, but of much more help post-election. That’s pretty awesome I think.
What’s the deal with Sebelius? I know nothing about Kaine, I disagree with Bayh’s centrist DLC crap, but I did see Sebelius deliver the rebuttal speech after the President’s latest State of the Union and she was dismal. She was boring as hell and uninspiring. That’s the difference between her and Barack. Barack has always come through in the most opportune times. When he spoke at the DNC convention in ‘04 it was literally his only shot at getting in this cycle. He did it perfectly. That was Sebelius’ main chance to do something. Are people seeing something that I’m not? She’s a democratic governor from a red state, true, but what else? She’s a woman? That’s not terribly important to me.
I am liking this Joe Biden bad cop deal though. He sounds much more comfortable being on attack than does Barack.