comment: >
  
  
  The most successful way I've found to get a Republican to reconsider their vote is to ask them if they support Trump's executive orders which would have arbitrarily removed my SO from the country if he had won reelection. It's personal. When they learn that, a lot of them will shut up pretty quickly.
  
  They shut up pretty quickly...and then absolutely go on voting to deport your SO.
  Don't presume that silence means they're feeling shame. They can't.
context: Both you and the person that you answered are spot on. And thanks to you both for linking the demographic research that is most relevant. >
  
  So the Republicans are becoming the party of the people in the flyover states. The Democrats the urban intellectual elites? Like Hunger Games?
  There are many more cultural differences I would also consider. >
  
  Most of that empty space is deserts, farmland owned by corporations, cattle grazing ranges, mountains, national and state parks and government property.
  But it sure looks like a whole lot of "red" on the map, doesn't it?
  It's not half the population. It's 15% of the population. >
  
  Actually, it's 17.9% considered rural. The total population of red or flyover states is higher. But I couldn't find an exact number. But it is close to 50%. >
  
  Statistics are a wonderful thing. And those are interesting. 158 million votes were cast in that election. Biden received 51.3% and Trump 46.8%. 46.8% is pretty damn close to 50%. You can parse all the different demographics until you're blue in the face. But the simple fact is that close to 50% of voters supported Trump. Are you suggesting rural votes count more? That only red states have Republican voters? What exactly is your point? >
  
  Sparsely populated states have an anti-democratic leverage over the majority. That's my point. >
  
  No, they don't. Are you referring to the abolishment of the Senate nonsense? Or the electoral college? The electoral college represented by state per population. >
  
  Social systems theory of development and scaffolding theory suggests that we adopt the values of the people around us. Education is a 2nd tier of proximal development, so while not as influential has our caregivers and family, I could totally see how what type of education are person recieves effects their cultural and political values, thus political beliefs. >
  
  My own experience is that higher education put me in spaces with people who had more diverse backgrounds, experiences, and values than I had experienced in my small town. 
  So ‘education’ became a social location of experiencing diversity which then shaped my views of the world around me.  I was introduced to authors and research I would not have known, interpretations I could not have formed and these created empathy that I may not have had … so my value for social programs and policies for equity deepened (it was already there to begin with which is probably important as well). >
  
  I had a look at the voting demographics for my home country, where you can get quite a detailed picture as there are more than a dozen parties in parliament. Highly educated people tend to somewhat favour centre-left and centrist parties. Poorly educated people tend to disproportionately go for the far right and far left. Not too surprising, I suppose. >
  
  Yes this. People in the US can get confused because we only have the two major parties and the Democratic party is actually centrist on the global scale while conservatives are calling Democrats socialists all day long. >
  
  The United States' Democratic Party is very left-leaning when it comes to social issues (pro-LGBT, pro-immigration, pro-multiculturalism, pro-religious freedom for non-Christians, pro-women's rights, pro-choice, and the list continues). They are more centrist on economic issues, not by choice, but for survival. As the other commenter said, the party is really made up of three coalitions that find enough in common to stand against Republicans' regressive policies. Members of that coalition range from very far left on economic issues to more centrists. The more centrist views on economic issues tend to win out since the country as a whole is not very left-leaning on economic issues. The voting system is what makes the two parties, not necessarily a complete similarity in beliefs. >
  
  Compared to northwestern Europe I would argue that a lot of the topics you're listing aren't "very left leaning". They're fairly normal across most of the political spectrum.  
  Here in Scandinavia, not being pro- several of the things on the list would place you quite far right, or in a very small conservative religious party. >
  
  
  pro-immigration
  
  Scandinavia is pretty anti-immigrant though. Anti-immigrant parties and policies are rather popular there. >
  
  Nativism vs. globalism is neither inherently right-wing nor left-wing, though. Meanwhile, Scandinavia's Nordic model of social democracy is as about as economically left as it gets in the modern Western world.
  In this specific context, ethnocentrism, xenophobia, and whatnot are altogether irrelevant. >
  
  I would agree in the general sense without context, but unfortunately, anti-immigrant policies are mostly adopted by right wing parties in Europe. That's the context of European politics today. >
  
  Political views are usually shaped by life experiences. How a person was raised and sees the world is probably a better determinant >
  
  College is a major life experience. >
  
  Maybe so, but it’s one among many.
  From what I can glean from exit polling, college appears to have a stronger effect on white voters than on non-white voters, where there doesn’t seem to be much of a difference. Though this is assuming college has an effect at all >
  
  Huh? 
  Trump won 41% of the non-college Latino vote and only 30% of the college Latino vote. That's a pretty big disparity. >
  
  I’m not sure where you got that information from. The exit polls I’ve seen don’t filter by education and race for any race that isn’t white >
  
  It’s an established fact that higher education leads to more democratic voting. That’s a new-ish trend. But it’s just a truth. >
  
  For white voters yes, but there’s no significant difference for others >
  
  Another fun little fact is that Harry Truman is the last president that didn't have a college degree. >
  
  Trump bought his without showing up.  I think that qualifies. >
  
  Frankly, so did GWB >
  
  I wouldn’t say “largely,” and I would be careful with it conceptually because imo there’s a lot of second-order factors that are likely to be involved here.
  Psychologically, “liberal” sentiments have a strong relationship with openness to new things and “conservative” sentiments have a strong relationship with fear and sense of security. We see this both in that people who vote more liberally tend to be more interested in exploring new places, cultures, cuisine, ideas, etc. People who vote more conservatively tend to be more interested in pursuing things that promote safety, security, and stability.
  This is reinforced by studies that show we can actually change how liberally or conservatively someone will lean at a given moment by priming them with things that tend to create the desired mental frame. E.g., It’s possible to get a more liberal person to start responding to policy questions more conservatively by showing or telling them something that inspires fear, even just a little. People who were already conservative-leaning will respond even more conservatively. 
  So back to education. Most universities are among the most racially and culturally diverse areas in their locale. Exposure to people with different racial and cultural backgrounds tends to help reduce fear of the “other,” and often breeds more curiosity about people and cultures outside your comfort zone. Both of these things would likely push someone ideologically further left. That’s before we get to exposure to new ideas (because ultimately I think classes are some of the least influential parts of the university experience on a person’s personal growth).
  That’s just one example. I’d be curious to see any research that teases out how much of a shift in ideology via attending university is actually this exposure to diversity. It may be a lot, it may be a little. It’s fun to think about. >
  
  That's a very interesting dissection and one that sounds right to me. The social engagement Factor was big for me, while academics also help me understand the world better and in a more nuanced way. In a sense, those people who are comfortable with exploring continue to expand in that Realm even just here on reddit. I have found my perspectives have expanded enormously through interesting conversations such as this one. While I cannot say that my curiosity is the norm, the opportunity is there just like on college campuses for those that have interest in it. >
  
  9th grade drop out(never got my ged),voted democrat down ballot my whole life. >
  
  I think education is more an indicator of lack of extremism, rather than ideology. It’s rare to see a lawyer in a riot or an engineer at a protest.
  I also think any analysis of education’s effect on political ideology needs to control for the variable of liberal bias at collegiate institutions. If someone’s professors are liberal, they’re more likely to be liberal. >
  
  Explain how you're cataloguing the careers of people at protests. >
  
  Because they are careers that require higher levels of education. 
  He never said that there aren't lawyers or engineers present at riots or protests, just that there is a lower chance they would be there.
  Higher education would likely lead to different methods to take part in change. For example a lawyer would more likely try to bring change in the court room with a lawsuit rather than go and march. >
  
  How do you know the professions of rioters? The only time where we have access to a semi-wide sampling of rioters was Jan 6 and people in high status professions were overrepresented IIRC. >
  
  Link? I'm extremely skeptical.
  Realtors and general managers, sure. High status professions? I doubt it. >
  
  The effect of education in modern politics seems to be more in communication than the establishment of beliefs. Educated people are trained to look deeper, demand more comprehensive explanations, expect greater consistency. They also tend to forget that these intellectual traits do not come naturally, nor are they encouraged in large segments of society. A simple statement, made authoritatively, actually sounds smarter. An idiotic statement sounds smarter than admiting ignorance of a fact. A blatant lie is less insulting than obfuscation. People are interpreting messages differently based on education, and seem largely oblivious. 
  A key thrust of Trump’s political strategy was to provoke the growing chasm. He would deliberately say things to provoke the mocking and condemnation of educated portions of society. Than portray the attacks on him as attacks on ordinary Americans. Trump supporters became conditioned to view attacks on him as attacks on them. >
  
  Well, I think a major flaw in this question is the fact that you're using "determine", which is a pretty extreme term for something like this. This is basically asking the question "are uneducated people conservative?" as if it's possible to establish a direct causal relationship between education and political ideology. If that is what you're asking, then the answer would be a definite no. But such an easy to answer question is probably not what you were going for.
  Education can influence the political ideology of an individual and it would seem that we have data to support that. But it definitely doesn't cause a person to have a certain political ideology. After all, there are both Marxist and Laissez-faire capitalist college professors (unlike what some conservatives would have you believe) who have doctorate degrees. So many politicians and bureaucrats (whether they're in Congress or the Executive) have college degrees that an outside observer would be surprised that a college education isn't a requirement. >
  
  Thank you for the clarification and also you're aware that I am looking for a more nuanced answer than something so black and white. Your assessment is what I was going for. >
  
  The trend in recent years has been that democrats win the majority of college educated voters, a reversal of the status quo for most of the post war period. However, this hasn’t translated to democrats winning the majority of higher income (meaning earning six figures or more) voters, while education level is typically used as a proxy for income/class. Which tells me two things: one, the Venn diagram circles of “working class voters” and “college educated voters” are getting more and overlapped. Two, this is most likely a reflection of younger voters preferences, which are generations more like to be college educated than the older ones. Which is to say, education levels are more a correlation than a causation of the partisan splits in modern politics. >
  
  I don't think I'm following your conclusions. Would you please elaborate on 1 and 2? >
  
  While yes it does, I’d argue it’s more experiencing life outside of your own small bubble that shifts folks political ideology to generally blue. When you experience other people, other cultures, etc you tend to get less fixated on your own preconceived notions of people and their experiences. 
  I’d argue this helps people develop empathy and better understand why programs exist/should continue to exists and why other policies/programs/laws should be implemented. >
  
  I bet a majority of the people who invested money with Sam Bankman Fried were college educated Democrats.
  A majority of the people in Boston who are backing a proposal to lower the voting age to 16 are college educated Democrats.
  A majority of the people in Alameda County CA who are proposing that landlords not be allowed to do a criminal background check on prospective tenants are college educated Democrats.
  Education does indeed determine to a large extent your political ideology, but it doesn’t correlate with intelligence. >
  
  Not only that, but there are plenty of highly intelligent, well-read, self-taught autodidacts who can run goddamn circles around arrogant overeducated professional-managerial-class degree holders, who've been churned out en masse from the diploma mill that is contemporary American academia, where standards are fast decreasing in value due to creeping credentialism and educational inflation. >
  
  Education doesn't determine political ideology.  There may be some loose correlation but that does not show causation.  There are other correlations like people with empathy generally leaning liberal and people who are self-centered generally leaning conservative. >
  
  I am not trying to troll you. But aren’t self-centeredness and empatheticness kind of subjective measurements. 
  Compared to education (high school degree, bachelor’s degree, master’s degree) which is kind of objectively measured. 
  I agree if empathy and self-centeredness are self reported measurements but I’m not sure how helpful those are. >
  
  While what he said about conservatives is incorrect, there are measures to determine various ethical bases. These are decent measurements with verified correlations and predictive power. 
  The Moral Foundations theory splits morality into 5/6 bases; Care, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority, Sanctity, and Liberty as the newest 6th base (originally only 5, so some research only has 5). JDogg's comments about empathetic people leaning left is kind of true, people who put Harm and Fairness  higher are more left wing, while conservatives tend to balance all the bases more equally. This difference is why so many view political opponents as evil, they are blind to the moral foundations that the other uses. Because left wing morality has so little emphasis on the other 3/4 bases, left wingers are particularly susceptible to the "my opponent is evil trap", leading to the phrase "conservatives think liberals are stupid, and liberals think conservatives are evil". >
  
  First of all, education is rarely easily measured. What we see are credentials and we can infer from there. Second, education is not some monolithic download of information, and thus there are many ways one can be educated. All manners of education are implicitly ideological and can inculcate certain values. What is more likely to produce more liberal values is attending an institution that is diverse in both its population and its educational services. Many institutions of high prestige are fairly conservative by way of the types of people who attend and the presence of various ideological factions in those institutions (e.g. Skull and Bones).
  The simplest way to point out the silliness of this is to wonder if someone will be "made more liberal" by higher education given that the institution they attend is Hillsdale College. Factoring in here are the predispositions that lead one to attend that school in the first place (almost guaranteed conservative) and the constraints that institution has placed on how it presents its educational resources ins service of ideology (which is explicitly conservative). Compare that to a state school which is likely to be more diverse and less overtly ideological as an institution. The former will almost certainly result in a politically conservative graduate, while the latter may have an inclination toward a more liberal outlook but is less likely to be a slam dunk in terms of predicting a graduate's ideology later. >
  
  Your comment about diversity reminds me of a series of interviews conducted with the same people before and after the Brexit vote.  
  One man was initially pro-Brexit. He didn't like foreign people moving into his area and taking their jobs, causing trouble, etc. After the vote his beliefs and ideas had started to change as he met and got to know a Polish man where he worked. They lived not far from each other, met each others families and became friends. He realised that this Polish man was a hard working good family man just like himself and not like the stereotypes he previously believed. At the end of the interview he actually questioned if he'd done the right thing in voting for Brexit. All of that was because he got to know one man outside his usual circle of friends. >
  
  I have a Masters in Psychology and a Masters in Social Work.
  I'm a republican and what I learned to be the most true about undergrad work, is that it shows who can get busy work done.  That's it.  It doesn't mean people are actually educated. I know psych techs that never went to college who understand mental illness better than most grad students.
  Having an undergrad just says you are capable of completing boring work. Which is why it's a good indicator for most jobs out of college >
  
  So you vote for a party that wants to eliminate social programs but you have a masters in that field? How do you explain yourself? I’m really curious. >
  
  I to am curious. >
  
  Existence comes first. Ideas, thought, ideology comes second. We should have an explanation that relies on material factors in the last instance - what ways is reproducing life different in a city than in the countryside? That will give you the best answers. 
  If by education - we mean everything we learn - from when you are baby, all the way up to where you are now, all the things to learn to meet the basic needs of life, obviously that determines how you will see the world. When you look at opinion polling between countries, every different kind of country -consistently - dissidents are a minority, believers are a majority - the society reproduces itself as a whole, inevitably teaches all of its members it is God's gift to humanity, and as long as people can eat each day, they go along with it. 
  If we just mean - college education, schooling - the determination is less clear cut. It promotes scientific thinking, but neither political faction is really good with all the science stuff, I guess the liberals are less inclined to the - God Said It, Father said it - kind of argument, blood and soil thinking, so education definitely promotes the less conservative views. When public schooling is treated as a threat, college is treated as a threat, these are always partisan.
  Then there is wealth as gateway to education, but both petty bourgeois (more conservative) or bourgeois (simultaneously even more liberal and more conservative) views come out the end of this, so that influence is marginal in giving a decisive partisan bend to higher education, and only the influence from scientific thinking really remains. 
  None of this maps neatly onto rural and urban, so there is still a missing factor not in this comment. I would imagine it has to a lot with the kinds of jobs, the necessary infrastructure, the urban environment is much more dense. A lot of conservative people can't imagine thinking of mass transit as freeing, since you end up very interdependent. The conservative fantasy is still very much a sort of pre-industrial homesteading.
  
  Are correlates to wealth clear cut, generally speaking?
  
  Yes, especially once you appreciate global divisions. 
  Wealth also, obviously, determines how you are raised, how you navigate daily life, but maybe the better stating would be class, rather than wealth. There is a gradient, but it is sharply polarized, and then at the very top, there are disagreements, and then the river runs down, all the other debates are currently just in the shadow of the leading factional debates of the ruling class. Can gays be integrated as loyal workers, or is all the gay shit unraveling the production of loyal workers? Is Russia and Ukraine worth the time, or is this distracting us from China and losing Russia as a potential ally against China? Etc. Etc. 
  Class hegemony. This is also why political engagement goes up with wealth - the correlation between voter engagement and income etc is well documented. Most people tune out - they have a shit job today, they'll have a shit job tomorrow. >
  
  Thank you. I'm confused. In other places some have noted that education overwhelmingly correlates with political preference.  That, for instance, the less educated tend to vote overwhelmingly for republicans while the more educated tend to vote for democrats. This point did not come out very clearly in your explanation.
  Can you elaborate on the gradient that you reference with regards to wealth? You noted that it was clear cut and I wanted to better understand that point.
  Finally, you noted that both sides of the spectrum tend to have a poor grasp on science. I am curious to know how you mean that to be the case specific to progressives. what instances do they fail in grasping basic science? >
  
  
  In other places some have noted that education overwhelmingly correlates with political preference.  That, for instance, the less educated tend to vote overwhelmingly for republicans while the more educated tend to vote for democrats.
  
  What kind of 'other places' are you referring to? >
  
  Yes.
  Republican policy wants to squash education. 
  The dumber you are, the easier you are to control. Just look at MTG or Boebert. People objectively dumb to a reasonable smart person. Give me one single equivalent on the democratic side. They do not exist .
  I could name 20 more on the republican side. Herschel? Wtf? Low hanging fruit.
  But surely some like Ted Cruz and Bitch Connelly are smart but like to put on a persona.
  In UK politics the last prime minister put on a real fake show. Oh how his hair is all messed up but in reality he is from the top schools in Britain.
  Cancun Cruz is not "`well I'll tell ya folks". He is as country salt if the earth as a Rothschild..
  Sadly a whole whole lot of the voter base is too fucking dumb to see this >
  
  If education ever determined a person's political ideology, I suspect it would be because they were sheltered before this new education took place.
  Also, there was an interesting study that showed that an MRI could predict a person's ideology with an 83% accuracy rate, so nature matters, too.
  Per the Scientific American: 
  The volume of gray matter, or neural cell bodies, making up the anterior cingulate cortex, an area that helps detect errors and resolve conflicts, tends to be larger in liberals.
  The amygdala, which is important for regulating emotions and evaluating threats, is larger in conservatives.
  I'm a lefty, and four years at BYU could never change my views. And do you know how many conservatives brag about their ivy league educations? 
  This is just another ridiculous argument meant to distract people from real issues. Look over there! Someone's trying to teach a white kid about dog whistles! >
  
  
  Also, there was an interesting study that showed that an MRI could predict a person's ideology with an 83% accuracy rate, so nature matters, too.
  
  The environment does change the brain structure of people, so this doesn't prove at all that nature matters. >
  
  I'm not conservative or liberal but I had to laugh at a couple of very obvious mistakes in your post.
  
  so they're more responsive to fear mongering
  
  No, this is actually laughably false considering the past few years.
  ​
  
  liberals tend to think about things in terms of shades of grey with nuance.
  
  Not even close.  Both the left and the right are equally guilty of this. >
  
  
  I'm not conservative or liberal
  
  Uh-huh. You know who says that?
  Conservatives. Right before they launch into another round of "both sides."
  
  
  so [conservatives are] more responsive to fear mongering
  
  No, this is actually laughably false considering the past few years.
  
  Would you like to explain what you mean here? 
  Because the past few years have been an absolute frenzy of conservative fear over absolutely nothing, from calling governments authoritarian tyrannies for trying to save their lives to absolute panic over the existence of a few children they hate. >
  
  
  Uh-huh. You know who says that?  
  Conservatives. Right before they launch into another round of "both sides."
  
  Swing and a miss.
  Sorry but both sides are guilty as sin.  Y'all on the left are no better than the right.  You tend to be less self aware and more hypocritical though.  The right is not smart or righteous.  I wouldn't begin to make that claim.  You just don't realize or accept how bad y'all are.  You make pathetic excuses for your authoritarian tendencies while highlighting theirs.  Both sides absolutely do it and it's pathetic.  On the occasion, one of you actually gets a politician that doesn't play that game you both try to get rid of them.  That's why I won't vote for either of your crap politicians anymore.  Fuck Trump and Biden and Desantis for that matter as well as all the other politicians that support any one of those assholes. >
  
  So you deny that you're about to launch into the classic conservative "both sides" nonsense...literally the sentence before you launch into the classic conservative "both sides" nonsense.
  This is just silly. >
  
  Again, not a conservative.
  No matter how much you lie and try to make that claim, it is not true.
  I've done NOTHING to defend conservatives.  Just pointed out your side is a bunch of lying hypocrites.
  Talk about a dishonest strawman bunch of bullshit. >
  
  For somebody who isn't a conservative, you sure have a lot more complaining about the left than complaining about the right in your posting history. >
  
  I think that education is one of the largest determinants in deciding political ideology. Though I do feel that the density of one's school or education platform can be a factor in determining ideology as well. Thanks for pointing this out!! >
  
  Yes and no. Let me explain from my own mulling of this idea over the years and experience. 
  I grew up in the country. Deep Republican country. Religion was a huge factor in my early life, I went to a school that was 99% white with all grades in a single building surrounded by cornfields. Insofar as diversity, we had two — two POC at this entire school. Let that sink in. 
  So, as it would stand, my exposure to the world was very small and my views of it were only as large as the next cornfield. 
  My family were from a long line of farmers and while I was the first generation that didn’t farm (my dad did when he was younger) — the idea of the ‘working man’ and anything else you could fathom culturally from that sort of life had an impact on me. I was, in many ways, very ignorant.
  In school, we learned about Native Americans, how Thanksgiving was, and there was a lot of emphasis on the Founding Fathers. America was the greatest country in the world when I was a child. We never learned about how much bullshit there really was. 
  Part of this could be explained away with the notion of how could someone possibly explain to a 5 year old the concept of genocide, war, and other atrocities. But there was a pervasive nationalist undertone in my early education and a white-wash of history on the edge of brainwashing. 
  A few events and things shaped my life in profound ways. 
  9/11 was, perhaps, the biggest one. I was 7 when the towers fell. I remember the pained looks on my parents’ faces. How we were launching a Global War on Terror and bombing Iraq. 
  In school, we were instructed to put together care packages for soldiers. The nationalist zeal had reached a fever-pitch in the months following that event and it was almost intoxicating in elementary school. 
  We painted murals on the hallway walls, hung up posters, drew the twin-towers burning, and recited the pledge in lock-step to concepts and a world we had little knowledge of.  We were the good guys, and by God, we were going to wipe the Earth of every terrorist - one glue-stick and glitter-pen at a time. 
  Y2K was another event. The hysteria around this was just as pronounced, if not more so for us simple country folk. We lived in a small ranch house next to a church. I still remember all the crazy town people that gathered in the yard and prayed and wailed as if God would come down and smite them himself. 
  I noted how religion was a big thing. We did go to church a lot. I remember Sunday school skipping over the more troubling parts of the Bible, and questions being met with condescension, because my age meant I couldn’t possibly be taken seriously — when in reality some of these ‘rituals’ and teachings we performed or learned hardly made any sense. 
  And I remember the crazy pastor that told is how Pokemon were the signs of the devil and that gays were burning in hell. And how my Sunday school teacher told me my dog wouldn’t go to heaven. 
  And then there were POC. I remember the first time I saw a black man, I was maybe 4 or 5. And I was terrified. I had never seen someone with skin so dark before — I remember asking my mom what was wrong with him. I didn’t understand. But living in the deep country like this - you ever seen how people treat others when they’re sick? That’s how it was around people of color. 
  Racism was very prevalent, even in my own family. My grandmothers were some of the most vicious, two-faced, and prejudiced people on the planet. And almost everyone I knew treated black people like they were sick. Like they were somehow different — and I couldn’t understand why. 
  And then I met Johnathon. 
  Johnathon was one of the only two kids at my school who was black. I was already an odd kid and him and I just sort of clicked. We were two peas in a pod and he was my best friend for my entire childhood. I got picked on a lot for it. But what was wrong about it? Nobody could or would tell me. 
  He didn’t go to Church with us and they lived even further out of town than we did. But he was my buddy. And it was strange to think just a few years before how I was terrified of seeing someone darker than I. And here I was — but, as said, I got a lot of hate for it. 
  All of these things shaped a foundation in me that I didn’t understand at the time. Education wise, you would figure I’d be just some other country bumpkin now. But the biggest change happened when we moved to Texas. 
  Texas, for being a GOP state, is chocked full of diversity. We moved to the city, over a thousand miles away from where I spent my entire childhood and the culture-shock was unreal. 
  By this point - my views of things were already diverging from where I had grown up. I stopped going to Church by the time we moved, and I was just now becoming a teenager. I just could not equate religious dogma with reality among other things and rejected much of it. 
  I went from a school of around 700 or so students to one with 3000. And whites were about half the school now. We had people from Latin America, Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. There were students and teachers of different faiths. Our curriculum was, surprisingly, not much different from where I had moved from - but the daily interaction of people was very diverse and different. 
  I had always had an innate sense of curiosity as a kid. This caused me many problems growing up because I always asked questions — I was very inquisitive and had to know the whys. Why do we go to Church? Why are we not supposed to talk to people that aren’t white? Why this or why that. 
  When I got to Texas — that foundation really began to build. I ended up with a good group of friends. And my politics shifted around quite a bit. 
  As an adult now — looking back at it and my beliefs now. Which I am very liberal. The education really didn’t impact me because both places of my childhood were very conservative driven insofar as how they approached education. 
  Instead, it was the people. How am I to be a racist like my grandparents, or ultra-religious like my peers, to people I interacted with daily and considered, at most my friends, at worst, my equals? 
  My natural inquisitiveness was also likely a factor. Nothing was left unchallenged in my mind growing up. I always had issues with authority - not because of authority itself - but when it was expected to never be questioned. 
  I think my drive for the truth and answers to the whys are why I broke out of a narrow-minded path. Not because schools are indoctrinating us — I went to school in deeply Republican states. But because I just met more people and allowed my beliefs and expectations to be challenged. 
  I was afforded, thankfully, very loving parents who likewise are very liberal and are such a contrast to my grandparents. But they weren’t always that way either — they grew into who they are with me. But, like me, they had similar situations. My dad joined the Army and went all over the place — my mom was a runaway for a short while when she was younger and met a lot of people across the country. 
  But - despite that. My two brothers turned into narrow-minded conservatives. They went to the same schools as me but had different groups of peers than me. >
  
  I never noticed anywhere where you said what knowledge gained or actions witnessed drove the flipping in your thinking, just that it easily flipped. You will find an anchor when you find the truth. >
  
  People who are more educated on the ways capitalism is exploiting everyone tend to be more left leaning yes >
  
  Not at all, parents and surrounding determine for a large part political ideology. >
  
  Determine? Eh. Influence? Yes. Thomas Piketty co-authored a study on it.
  E: I can't imagine why reporting the most relevant study's findings is something that merits downvotes. >
  
  Things that generally dispose you to the left: 
  More than average Education, being young, being female, living in a city, not being elitely wealthy, being black, being LGBTQ+, being non-religious
  Reverse it for right
  Many people fit into categories in both, so you can’t use this to assume any one person’s ideology. >
  
  That's it in a nutshell >
  
  Look at what the majority of degrees are for, and the types of jobs degree holders have. If we're talking 4 year programs and higher that requires mommy and daddy's money or substantial debt. 
  Its class determined, not education. Majority of people in undergraduate and graduate programs are women now. Young white women are overwhelming democrat voters.  
  You're not getting the conservative tradesman going to a 4 year for business administration. You are getting the legacy sorority pledge and computer science majors though. 
  Atleast in millennials and later higher education is being seen as a racket and less of a necessity. Conservatives especially. The political difference is going to keep rapidly growing in schools.
  It's hard to say if you're a Democrat because you went to college, or you went to college because you're a Democrat.  The shifting demographics of those in college definitely plays a major role in your statistics though man. 
  Who goes to college isn't a accurate representation of the American population. Never was, never will be. >
  
  Seems like you are drinking the cool-aid that the PR people are selling you about Republicans all being uneducated. According to Google, 96% of congress has some form of college degree. >
  
  Congress is hardly representative of America. >
  
  Neither are malicious stereotypes >
  
  Nice whataboutism you got there, have you tried staying on topic? >
  
  Don't try to conflate formal education with intelligence because it's definitely not.
  The reason is because those who go into higher education exist in a prolonged childhood surrounded by peers of similar maturity, life experience, and views with very little exposure to opposing ideologies. They are shaped and educated by people who have spent their entire adult lives in such an echo chamber.
  Meanwhile those who don't go to college go into wider society interacting with those of widely varying maturity, experience levels, exposed to a massive amount of different views and ideologies, and take on the responsibilities and duties of wider society rather than be insulated from them.
  Turns out being trapped in a leftist echo chamber during your formative years tends to result in one having more left views. A 24-year-old college graduate having the same political views as a 17-year-old is problematic because it means they haven't had exposure to other ideas to let them evolve as a person. The difference in average political alignment for those who go right into college after high school and those who go later after a few years in the workforce or the military is stark and illustrates this. >
  
  
  Meanwhile those who don't go to college go into wider society interacting with those of widely varying maturity, experience levels, exposed to a massive amount of different views and ideologies, and take on the responsibilities and duties of wider society rather than be insulated from them.
  
  You seem to very much underestimate what is encountered in college. College entails many responsibilities, and it also entails meeting people with widely varying views and ideologies. In many ways, college is often the first experience a person has OUTSIDE of the echo chamber of their family and local social group.
  
  Turns out being trapped in a leftist echo chamber during your formative years tends to result in one having more left views.
  
  Please do not use this, I can just as easily say that a person stuck in a trades job in a rural job is trapped in a right wing echo chamber and just as politically ignorant, and summarily write off everyone who has lived in the same town from the ages of 16 to 25. >
  
  Depends on what you define as "education"  I can assure you that professional machinists, welders, roofers and other craftsmen are well educated people. But they did it through means OTHER than the usual 4 year college BS.  Many of them are certainly right leaning and its easy to see why.  Their education is in common sense, usable skills, etc.  
  Seems to me that a lot of "educated" democrats have degrees in all that feel good crap.  Like sociology,  history, etc. >
  
  
  Their education is in common sense
  
  Please provide an objective definition of "common sense". It used to be "common sense" that black people could not do the same work as those trades people. It used to be "common sense" that women were no good in the workforce, and existed to serve men as both house servants and on demand sex workers (aka "wives"). It used to be "common sense" that children could only be disciplined through battery and other physical assault. And some of that "feel good" crap is something people use quite productively, I hear Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump put it to good use, with the latter nearly overthrowing the US government, and the former getting 100k Russians killed through their use of psychology and knowledge of history. >
  
  A little touchy , arent we? OK, maybe common sense wasn’t the best phrase.  How about usable, tangible skills that actually allow one to be a productive member of society? Oh and even better, they get to skip the hyper left wing indoctrination process that most universities impose on their students.
  How the hell did Trump get into this conversation? How obsessed with this guy are you people? LOL.  Let it go, you’ll be happier. >
  
  
  Oh and even better, they get to skip the hyper left wing indoctrination process that most universities impose on their students.
  
  Please keep digging. Meanwhile, rural areas teach useful indoctrination in the local centers called "Churches" where hate is regularly published, and hate radio regularly calls liberals subhuman. As for Trump, I was providing an example of someone who utilize all those "feel good" subjects to a very successful degree to get what HE wants, regardless of his tangible hands on skills (he has almost none). I would also say Nancy Peloisi also does this well, she's managed to pull off incredible changes without any of those usable skills you describe.
  
  productive member of society
  
  Please define this. I don't care how skilled you are, if you don't know WHERE and WHEN to apply it, which is why we have marketing, psychology, history, sociology, and other such subjects. I'll throw some meat out there, gender studies is another USEFUL one, there are indeed things men and women respond to differently, and all to often, too many disciplines default to one gender or the other, and it is insulting and costs people with those useful skills quite a bit of money (and increasingly so, especially once you factor in the lawsuits, how many times do men need to learn that the workplace isn't the place to hit on, pick up, or straight up rape women? How many large orgs need to go bankrupt from it?). Like the assumption women couldn't POSSIBLY know how to do those useful hands on skills or that men couldn't POSSIBLY want to just be a stay at home dad and learn to cook and clean house and raise children. >
  
  Hmmmm.  What churches teach Hate? So, according to you, only rural areas have churches and people attending them? You must not get out much.  I’m not A Church goer myself but the people I know that do attend aren’t being taught hate and neither are their kids. This is just religious hatred coming from the peanut gallery.
  Whats all this workplace hitting on chicks stuff about? Gender studies? Oh boy.  Everyone’s favorite topic.  Gender is quite simple but re they’ve tried to over complicate it with all this nonsense.  Turns out that men are generally better at some things than women and women are generally better at some things than men.  Both genders tend to pick careers are roles that play into their strengths.  So what? If a guy wants to be a stay at home dad and his wife makes enough money then great.  No idea what your point is here, really. 
  Nancy Pelosi? Useless.  Only where she is due to money and political clout as most politicians are. >
  
  
  What churches teach Hate?
  Any church that declares gays are sinners, or liberals are baby killers, or Democrats will burn in the fires of Hell. The usual conservative stuff. That voting for Republicans will save the USA, and voting for Democrats is no better then worshipping the devil.
  Whats all this workplace hitting on chicks stuff about?
  
  Because of the lack of those "useless skills" (psychology, gender studies, history, etc, all those topiucs that come from the liberal indoctrinations centers you harped on about), a TON of places basically didn't ever really learn to deal with sexual harassment, and men literally bragged about getting away with it, and as a result, multiple groups have declared bankruptcy after being buried in sexual harassment lawsuits and settlements (Boy Scouts, Catholic church, I hear Southern Baptist Church is up next, Activision Blizzard paid a fortune as well).
  
  So what? If a guy wants to be a stay at home dad and his wife makes enough money then great.
  
  Guess what, a lot of people skip those "useless skills" and never learn this, and my evidence is what happened during the pandemic, women were once again expected to just sacrifice their careers, EVEN if they are making more money, solely to affirm gender stereotypes, because people never learned they are just that, STEROETYPES, they have no actual logical justification today. Something they might have learned if they taken those history/sociology courses...
  You may have learned, but a whole lot of conservatives and "salt of the earth people" learning those "useable" skills that skip college never have their worldview challenged on these matters, and force people into these same shitty setups, which led to a substantial amount of suicide via drug overdosing.
  Final point is, those "useful skills" only take you so far, and those "useless" skills serve quite a valid purpose that you seem to completely dismiss out of hand, and you treat college like a totally worthless place (liberal indoctrination center), so please broaden your views a bit. >
  
  It’s actually most tightly correlated to race/ethnicity + gender. 
  Then education among white people. >
  
  What's the spread? For Education it is about eight points. For women it is about 36 points. For a race and ethnicity what is the difference >
  
  White men tend to vote R 50-60%
  White women tend to vote R 45-55%
  Asian American voters have been shifting from majority R to majority D for a few decades. Now it’s about 
  Men: 55-65% Democratic
  Women 65-75% Democratic
  This data is about the same for Latinos. 
  Black men tend to vote Democratic 80-90%
  Black women tend to vote Democratic 90-100%
  Since the civil rights movement in the 1960s there has not been one presidential election in which the majority of white voters have voted Democratic or in which the majority of Black voters have voted Republican. However, there have been elections in which the majority of white women have voted Democratic, but just barely. >
  
  Interesting.  Are we seeing an impact from Trump on terms of changing trends? Is it permanent or too soon to tell?
  And what overall shifts can we expect in the coming decades? >
  
  I don’t think of myself as an able prognosticator but you ask good questions. Trump’s presidency seems like it was a pretty seismic event and it seems like with time we’ll see some realignments. But in a way, I sort of think he just made existing divisions be felt more and talked about more. I don’t know. 
  Regarding trends - the voting in 2020 was so different because of COVID that the exit poll data isn’t very reliable as a comparison to other presidential elections - so I think we’ll have to wait a bit to see what it looks like in the context of time. >
  
  Going on anecdotal evidence from life, I think in each country people tend to be influenced by family, friends,  media and educators. We choose our media but that choice is influenced by those we mix with. 
  We don't exactly choose our educators. In the West they overwhelmingly identify as left or liberal and their influence and academic gate-keeping might explain why people who go further in education lean leftwards, globalist, feminist and identarian. 
  I doubt that is the case in China or Russia and I bet that most educated people there support more ethno nationalist policies and tough-love economics. 
  I could be wrong but take the case of 8ndia - haven't voters there moved rightwards as the population became better educated? 
  There is a general trend though, of well-off though not super rich intelligencia thinking of themselves as moral arbiters, who can speak for the interests of the poorer masses in their country, or in their world if they are anti-nationalist. Education tends to make comfortable people arrogant. 
  As for Democrat or Republican,  Labour or Conservative,  no amount of education makes one of these preferable to a cow turd or daffodil for government. >
  
  I think I saw somewhere that geography tracked closer… if you were rural, that was a better predictor of your politics than education. I might be wrong though. >
  
  You use the term here ‘ideology’ as though it’s a natural component of humans. Or are you referencing only those who are ideologs? Ideology is a simulacrum of religion and that’s why those who hold ideologies are so hard to talk to. They have faith in their ideology without proof of its validity and therefore can’t defend it so don’t want to hear anything against it. >
  
  Education doesn't determine political ideology. A person's values and morals come from their upbringing, experiences, and circumstances. Education is a part of this, but it's not the only thing. While education doesn't determine ideology, it does help prevent people from extremism. Educated people are more likely to recognize complexity, think critically, and recognize influencing factors. This leads them to become more pragmatic and nuanced in their beliefs. Because of this educated people are less likely to buy into extremist ideologies that try to sell a magical solution to all of societies problems. Instead they prefer more pragmatic ideologies near the center that aren't as heavy on the idealism. >
  
  Yeah, college was the only place in my educational life where I could parce out my teachers/professors political leanings. All through public school back then they had a very hard separation between kids and politics. I think there is a power dynamic even between college student and professor that can influence people to align with their beliefs. >
  
  Maybe Yes and No. I think and view most teachers in education to be identified with the Democratic party, because the Democratic party shares some opinions on their platform that are identical to teachers opinions on issues. >
  
  I think it's that populism has a greater appeal to the less educated people and certain parties are better at embracing it. One thing I noted was that Elizabeth Warren did really well with the highly educated. And almost no one else. Her campaign was very focused on policy and progressive improvements with very little populism. She's like the refined example of a certain kind of focused, wonkish liberal Democrat that can come off about as appealing as a school marm unless you're reading newspapers and white papers and closely listening to what they say, which only educated people would tend to do. Republicans don't tend to bother with that kind of messaging, they hit populism hard and those simpler messages appeal to the less educated.  
  I don't think the underlying policies even matters much. Sanders, who was to her left on policy, did better with more demos because he also embraced populism and personality-driven politics. I would bet that if Trump ran as a Democrat he would have done OK too. Probably wouldn't have gotten the nomination, but he would have gotten support with the less educated. >
  
  Yeah the more educated you are, the better your critical thinking skills are, therefore you're less likely to vote Republican. >
  
   No, the assumption is that education in red states is inadequate. This means rural people are less informed or ignorant. I can't speak for any are but my own. But I feel I received a decent education. To put a yardstick to it, I scored a 27 out of 36 on my ACT. The national average is 20.8. I do not have a college degree. So by some standards that makes uneducated, despite being well read and well traveled. I am not stupid or ignorant. A college degree does not make one smart. 
   In my opinion, people in flyover country have different priorities than in urban areas. They also take offense to people they don't know who live a thousand miles away, telling them what to do. There are plenty of good people who live in rural areas. Just like in urban areas. And there are bad people in both as well.
  The "divide" between these two groups is a fabrication that suits both political parties and is encouraged by both to preserve their voting bases. As modern Americans spend less time with their fellow citizens, on average, it is easy to believe a stereotype you can't refute through personal experience. >
  
  Agreed on all fronts >
  
  I’m certain it has an impact, but look at Ben Shapiro, for example. Highly educated, and somehow still broken. >
  
  The LEFT repeats this to make people on the right seem stupid, but I know several people with advanced degrees who voted for Trump and some with no high school that hate Trump. >
  
  I'm not on the left but what you state is not actually the whole truth. Yes, it is obnoxious to hear some people on the left condescend based on education. However, there is statistical fact related to that which should not be thrown out with the bathwater. There is an 8 to 10% shift in party preference that is related to education levels. Essentially, the higher one's education, they will vote more democratic. I would advise against the implication that this means somehow that stupid people vote Republican because that is what the left narrative states. That percentage shift I referenced does not necessarily mean that someone is more intelligent. It means that those at a higher education level tend to relate to the Democratic platform more than the Republican one. >
  
  Age and location are more likely indicators I would suspect. Young urban kids probably both happen to lean left and also go to college. >
  
  Depends if the institution pushes propaganda or not. I do electrical work had a job at a college and the political shit on the walls of that place was scary. >
  
  What did they have on the walls? >
  
  I agree with whoever said that other cultural factors need to be considered.  This may also correlate with education, but men are more likely to be Republicans.  Men are more likely to vote based upon gun rights only.  These men won’t be swayed by any other policy issue.  Republicans are good at attracting the one issue voter.  Abortion and guns.  I’m not sure these folks are the uneducated.  They are very indoctrinated into their beliefs. >
  
  A majority of colleges lean heavily left in ideology so it would make sense that they tend to change and indoctrinate students to the left.  Others have posted the stats so I won’t repeat that. >
  
  When a person learns HOW to think, to question HOW we got the answer, to accept that greater knowledge leads to greater understanding, that during that process things change, and that current understanding is tentative and contextual…
  I see how that could be the literal opposite of codifying claims accepted without/despite evidence (being taught WHAT to think), claiming it’s “how you interpret evidence,” that cowardice is courage, that non-discrimination is discriminatory, hate is love, science is religion… theocrats gonna theocrat. They are working as fast as they can to bring Handmaids tale to 1984. >
  
  For the most part yes, public education largely determines political ideology, we see this a lot in America with public education leaning heavily to the left for the last 40 years and now we see mostly left-winged politicians winning most races; as I'm sure it occurs in every country.
  Politics has NO place in public education, but since the government funds it, via taxpayers money, they get to dictate what can and cannot be taught. >
  
  When you go to college you are immersed in change.  You meet people from around the world. New cultures, new food, new music, and new art.
  You're forced to take classes that focus on critical thinking and logic.
  You are forced to carefully cite sources from credible research.
  If that happens to end up aligning you with a particular political party well, then so be it. >
  
  I think it has a slight advantage but I believe the media and churches play a much bigger role in determining political ideology >
  
  Yes, more education leads to more liberal voters. It is one of the primary reasons right-leaning politicians want to gut public education. They claim the public education systems "indoctrinate" youth. 
  I'm sorry, but if your political party depends on people not getting an education - you are the baddies. >
  
  Not really.  Pre Trump more college educated people voted Republican.  Even now it's not that stark even with Biden's attempts to give away large sums of money to those with college debt.  Add in the long term liberal indoctrination in schools and that might explain the current difference. >
  
  $31 trillion in debt. Value of dollar shrinking. Massive government infringing on liberties. Endless war. This is what the educated people who run America have given us. No thanks. >
  
  No, I believe religion can determine political ideology. Consider people that attend liberty university or who live in exurbs. >
  
  Up until the last handful of election cycles they were more college graduate Republicans than Democrats.
  Although post-grad I think it's always been a majority Democrats.
  Maybe calling college liberal indoctrination and encouraging kids not to go to college wasn't a good strategy? >
  
  I think that fresh graduates lean heavily blue.  They have everything to gain from democratic policies.  As time goes on, they become more successful, and more republican, with everything to lose via higher taxes.  I'm a perfect example of this. >
  
  It's not entirely the education itself, but  the social connections that come with that education. 
  It's hard to find a PhD who votes Republican, because that would mean voting to deport our former classmates, our current coworkers, and plenty of friends and family.
  But go to any Republican rally, and you'll find plenty of people who have never met someone from another continent. To many of them, the concept of "immigrants" is purely theoretical, and they have no cognizance of immigration policies actually affecting real people.
  The most successful way I've found to get a Republican to reconsider their vote is to ask them if they support Trump's executive orders which would have arbitrarily removed my SO from the country if he had won reelection. It's personal. When they learn that, a lot of them will shut up pretty quickly.