comment: >
  
  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.
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.