Where have we heard this before? <G>
https://currently.att.yahoo.com/news/shy-trump-voters-could-impair-165833828.html
Such an ignorant condescending article rift with mistakes.
The people who win wars are the ones who DON'T fight the last war.
“Polling is one of those things like military battles: You always re-fight the last war,” said Joshua D. Clinton, who co-directs the University of Vanderbilt’s poll and served on the AAPOR committee. The 2020 election “might have a different set of considerations,” he said, but pollsters have an obligation to learn from the last cycle’s mistakes.'
And they have a need to believe that Trump supporters are "Uneducated"
"To make sure their results reflect the true makeup of the population, pollsters typically “weight” their data, adding emphasis to certain respondents so that a group that was underrepresented in the random sample still has enough influence over the poll’s final result. Polls typically weight by age, race and other demographic categories.
But some state-level polls in 2016 did not weight by education levels, therefore giving short shrift to less educated voters, who tend to be harder to reach.
This often understated Trump’s support, since he was markedly more popular than past Republican nominees among less educated voters — and noticeably less popular among those with higher degrees, who research suggests are more likely to participate in polls."
Please continue to underestimate.
Tim,
There is no question that Trump supporters have less formal, higher education........by a wide margin in some measures.
However, it's not the education which is the reason. It's because our institutions of higher educations have become liberal indoctrination environments. Not just a small influence but the preponderance for liberal teaching is off the charts vs almost no conservative teaching.
Many people suspect and claim this but the studies not only confirm it but the disparity is mind boggling:
Differences in Conservative and Liberal Brains
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/40697/
Interesting too, that almost all fields of science are dominated by people with an extreme liberal bias. Climate science is no exception. They are obviously well educated which is why progressive activists are twice as likely to have a higher education. They have a strong presence in many realms that provide opportunities for them to have the power to influence the belief system of others.
College professors for instance.............very VERY liberal.
In recent years, concern has grown over what many people see as a left-of-center political bias at colleges and universities. A few months ago, Mitchell Langbert, an associate professor of business at Brooklyn College, published a study of the political affiliations of faculty members at 51 of the 66 liberal-arts colleges ranked highest by U.S. News in 2017. The findings are eye-popping (even if they do not come as a great surprise to many people in academia).
Democrats dominate most fields. In religion, Langbert’s survey found that the ratio of Democrats to Republicans is 70 to 1. In music, it is 33 to 1. In biology, it is 21 to 1. In philosophy, history and psychology, it is 17 to 1. In political science, it is 8 to 1.
The gap is narrower in science and engineering. In physics, economics and mathematics, the ratio is about 6 to 1. In chemistry, it is 5 to 1, and in engineering, it is just 1.6 to 1. Still, Lambert found no field in which Republicans are more numerous than Democrats.
metmike: Our college campuses have become the perfect environment for indoctrination into far left ideologies via biased mentors that represent their 1 sided views only. This study quantifies the disparity with evidence in the form of actual numbers. WOW!
With the exception of engineering, they are mind boggling. Some teach in areas and ways that their political affiliation would never be a factor. However, sometimes it is and it's almost always pushing an extreme left agenda.
It's no surprise that those with a college education are twice as likely to be progressive activists.
Here are the results of that study below.
Figure 2 gives a picture of how the broad liberal arts fields compare with respect to political affiliation. The professional field has the least extreme (but still unbalanced) D:R ratio while ideologically rooted interdisciplinary studies has the most extreme. The hard sciences are more balanced than the social sciences and the humanities.
I guess it depends on how you define education. I don't have a PHd, but I can hold my own in most debates on economics and the constitution.