comment: >
  
  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.
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.