IQ of Kerry vs bush voters

Now this is really interesting. It’s a chart demonstrating quite dramatically that the lower the average IQ of a state’s population, the more likely it was to vote for bush. Read the description of the methodology at the end. While I can’t say if this would hold up to detailed scrutiny, it’s certainly eye-opening.

The Discussion: 9 Comments

*grin* oh, that chart is ‘oh so cruel’ on ‘oh so many levels’ … uh, I’m from Alabama. Thanks. I’ll be scheduling the ‘ego boost therapy’ right away. ๐Ÿ˜‰

Hey, I voted for your blog at Best Of the Weblogs (Category:BEST JOURNALISTIC BLOG ENGLISH).

Congrats on the nomination! I hope you win!

November 4, 2004 @ 10:05 pm | Comment

Richard, this is very interesting, especially since it correlates closely to figures shown on this site that were pulled from US Census Bureau data.

November 4, 2004 @ 11:38 pm | Comment

Oh, so eugenics the solution for the Democrats, uh huh.

November 5, 2004 @ 1:59 am | Comment

I’d like to see a similar chart showing how the blue states measure up to the red ones in terms of income and/or wealth.

Between them, California and the Northeast account for a huge chunk of the nation’s economic activity, and of course they’re solidly blue. Which is a bit ironic, when you consider the popular perceptions that (a) rich people are more conservative than the rest of us; and (b) people (especially rich ones) always vote their pocketbooks.

Seems like there are plenty of comfortably well-off Americans for whom the prospect of lower taxes doesn’t automatically equate to support for Republicans. (I’m talkin’ to YOU, Conrad.)

November 5, 2004 @ 7:01 am | Comment

No, I think foreign affairs and cultural issues, as well as character swung this electon. London seems to be full of depressed expat bond traders right now.

November 5, 2004 @ 8:30 am | Comment

And another thing: one of the founding principles of Straussian neoconservatism is the idea that the รฉlite — intellectual and economic — have a God-given right to rule over their inferiors (hence the drive to repeal the estate tax, which will create a hereditary aristocracy).

November 5, 2004 @ 8:31 am | Comment

Most of the Americans who voted — certainly those who voted for bush — cared little about foreign affars. Cultural issues, yes, tremendously. According to polls of voters, foreign relations was rock-bottom on their lists.

November 5, 2004 @ 8:42 am | Comment

All of this just goes to show, is that it is even more important for democrats both nationally and on a local level, to support increased education spending, favourable college aid for the poor, and otherwise promote higher education in the crucial swing states!

November 5, 2004 @ 11:36 am | Comment

“Support” being the key word. At least in Congress, Democrats don’t have the slightest chance of being able to shape the legislative agenda.

But what they CAN do is introduce a barrage of bills aimed at increasing funding for K-12 education, or college grants, or (branching out a bit) police departments, fire departments, etc.

And when these bill die in Republican-dominated committees, as they inevitably will, the Democrats will have that much more ammunition to use in 2006. “Senator So-and-so voted against your children’s education. He voted against making our streets safer.” Etc.

November 5, 2004 @ 2:36 pm | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.