Arkady
President
Why is it that states that are smarter, better educated, and wealthier, on average, are also more likely to be "blue states"? When it comes to wealth, at least, this seems at first blush to be a case of people voting against their own interests. Republicans favor policies (like tax-cutting and deregulation) that benefit the wealthy, while Democrats favor policies (like social spending and labor protections) that benefit the lower and middle classes. So we'd expect richer states to go for the Republicans, other things being equal. And yet that's definitively not the case.
For example, here are the top five states when it comes to median household income:
1) New Hampshire
2) Connecticut
3) Maryland
4) New Jersey
5) Massachusetts
Those all went for Obama in 2008 and are pretty much locks to go for him again in 2012. The only locks for Romney among the top ten richest states are Alaska and Utah, and they're ninth and tenth, respectively, in the list. Meanwhile the twelve poorest states in the union are all likely to go for Romney. In fact, a reasonable best guess is that among the states that are richer than the national average, around 19 of 25 will go for Obama (I've counted DC), and among those that are poorer than the national average, about 20 of 26 will go for Romney.
Measures of education and intelligence are less definitive, but similar trends show up. For example, NAEP (standard tests of reading and math given to all 8th-graders) scores can be roughly converted to IQ scores, and using those conversions the top 5 states for IQ are:
1) Massachusetts
2) New Jersey
3) Vermont
4) Minnesota
5) New Hampshire
All of those are virtual locks for Obama, while Romney will doubtless clean up at the bottom of the list.
In terms of education levels, similar trends emerge. If you look at a list of states by the percentage of residents with a bachelor's degree or better, you need to go all the way down to number 12 (Utah), to find a state that went for McCain:
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/edu_bac_deg_or_hig_by_per-bachelor-s-degree-higher-percentage
In 2012, it's a good bet that Obama will take nine out of ten of the best-educated states (assuming Romney peels of either Virginia or Colorado, which both went blue in 2008), and that Romney will take ten out of ten of the least-educated states (though Obama could repeat his 2008 upset in North Carolina).
So, why is there this trend for smarter, better-educated, wealthier states to go blue? I'm asking this not to imply Obama supporters are smarter, more educated, and richer than Romney supporters. In fact, one of the most interesting things is that the stats within a given population often run counter to the stats across states. For example, even though richer states are more likely to vote for Obama, richer INDIVIDUALS are more likely to vote for Romney. It's not that having more money makes you more friendly to Obama -- if anything, it's the opposite. Rather, it's that living in a more prosperous SOCIETY makes you more likely to vote for Obama. Or, to put it the other way, being poor makes you more likely to vote for Obama, but living in a poor society makes you more likely to vote for Romney. I'm curious why.
I assume a lot of people will immediately reach for racial explanations. Those might make some sense given the big gap in racial distribution among the states. But I suspect that's not the core explanation. Our underclass happens to be black and Hispanic, for historical reasons, but it seems likely that even if the country were all-white you'd see similar statistical trends. As evidence, consider the tendency, internationally, for smarter, better educated, wealthier countries to be more liberal.
If you measure liberalism in terms of higher and more progressive taxes, a robust social safety net (e.g., universal healthcare), lots of regulation of business (labor and environmental standards), protection of women's rights, general suffrage, and a government commitment to secularism and pluralism, then nearly all the wealthiest nations in the world are more liberal than an average nation (with a handful of small exceptions, like Qatar and Kuwait). Even within a region, like Western Europe, you'll find that the more liberal countries tend to be the better-educated, wealthier ones, like those of Scandinavia, the Benelux countries, Switzerland, France, and Germany, while the more conservative countries, like the more religious and traditional countries of Southern Europe (Portugal, Spain, and Greece), also trail in terms of wealth and education. You could do similar comparisons within other regions -- for example, Qatar and Kuwait may be conservative by international standards, but they're more liberal than most Middle-Eastern countries, and also richer and better-educated than the most conservative nations of the region (like Afghanistan and Iran). So, there's more than just America's racial issues in the mix.
I've got a feeling it has something to do with fear. I suspect that when you have lots of poor and poorly educated people in a society, people are anxious, and they're comforted by reactionary visions, law-and-order posturing, and simple messages. When there's less poverty and ignorance, people are more receptive to a more liberal vision of what can be.
For example, here are the top five states when it comes to median household income:
1) New Hampshire
2) Connecticut
3) Maryland
4) New Jersey
5) Massachusetts
Those all went for Obama in 2008 and are pretty much locks to go for him again in 2012. The only locks for Romney among the top ten richest states are Alaska and Utah, and they're ninth and tenth, respectively, in the list. Meanwhile the twelve poorest states in the union are all likely to go for Romney. In fact, a reasonable best guess is that among the states that are richer than the national average, around 19 of 25 will go for Obama (I've counted DC), and among those that are poorer than the national average, about 20 of 26 will go for Romney.
Measures of education and intelligence are less definitive, but similar trends show up. For example, NAEP (standard tests of reading and math given to all 8th-graders) scores can be roughly converted to IQ scores, and using those conversions the top 5 states for IQ are:
1) Massachusetts
2) New Jersey
3) Vermont
4) Minnesota
5) New Hampshire
All of those are virtual locks for Obama, while Romney will doubtless clean up at the bottom of the list.
In terms of education levels, similar trends emerge. If you look at a list of states by the percentage of residents with a bachelor's degree or better, you need to go all the way down to number 12 (Utah), to find a state that went for McCain:
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/edu_bac_deg_or_hig_by_per-bachelor-s-degree-higher-percentage
In 2012, it's a good bet that Obama will take nine out of ten of the best-educated states (assuming Romney peels of either Virginia or Colorado, which both went blue in 2008), and that Romney will take ten out of ten of the least-educated states (though Obama could repeat his 2008 upset in North Carolina).
So, why is there this trend for smarter, better-educated, wealthier states to go blue? I'm asking this not to imply Obama supporters are smarter, more educated, and richer than Romney supporters. In fact, one of the most interesting things is that the stats within a given population often run counter to the stats across states. For example, even though richer states are more likely to vote for Obama, richer INDIVIDUALS are more likely to vote for Romney. It's not that having more money makes you more friendly to Obama -- if anything, it's the opposite. Rather, it's that living in a more prosperous SOCIETY makes you more likely to vote for Obama. Or, to put it the other way, being poor makes you more likely to vote for Obama, but living in a poor society makes you more likely to vote for Romney. I'm curious why.
I assume a lot of people will immediately reach for racial explanations. Those might make some sense given the big gap in racial distribution among the states. But I suspect that's not the core explanation. Our underclass happens to be black and Hispanic, for historical reasons, but it seems likely that even if the country were all-white you'd see similar statistical trends. As evidence, consider the tendency, internationally, for smarter, better educated, wealthier countries to be more liberal.
If you measure liberalism in terms of higher and more progressive taxes, a robust social safety net (e.g., universal healthcare), lots of regulation of business (labor and environmental standards), protection of women's rights, general suffrage, and a government commitment to secularism and pluralism, then nearly all the wealthiest nations in the world are more liberal than an average nation (with a handful of small exceptions, like Qatar and Kuwait). Even within a region, like Western Europe, you'll find that the more liberal countries tend to be the better-educated, wealthier ones, like those of Scandinavia, the Benelux countries, Switzerland, France, and Germany, while the more conservative countries, like the more religious and traditional countries of Southern Europe (Portugal, Spain, and Greece), also trail in terms of wealth and education. You could do similar comparisons within other regions -- for example, Qatar and Kuwait may be conservative by international standards, but they're more liberal than most Middle-Eastern countries, and also richer and better-educated than the most conservative nations of the region (like Afghanistan and Iran). So, there's more than just America's racial issues in the mix.
I've got a feeling it has something to do with fear. I suspect that when you have lots of poor and poorly educated people in a society, people are anxious, and they're comforted by reactionary visions, law-and-order posturing, and simple messages. When there's less poverty and ignorance, people are more receptive to a more liberal vision of what can be.
