Wait a minute... you claim to be for state's rights, yet you favor a constitutional amendment that would ban states from allowing same-sex marriage??? That doesn't fly.

The data is pretty definitive. The states with the highest percentages of undergraduate degrees supported the President; the states with the lowest percentages supported Romney. These are facts...interpret them as you wish!

My specific feelings about gay marriage are irrelevant to my point. Any amendment by nature supercedes a State's right. For example the 14th Amendment supercedes the States' ability to deny citizens due process and their civil liberties. Don't pick a flash point subject and try to have some sort of "gotcha" conversation. What I am specifically interested in addressing is Mr. Nedd's interpretation of how education level correlated to the election results.

Don't try and make this about me.

You don't need my interpretation of the correlation. The data speaks for itself. The states with the highest percentages of undergrad degrees voted for the President. States with the lowest voted for Romney. What's so hard to interpret about that?

I’ll tell you how my point is relevant to the subject at hand JP. When conservatives claim to be for personal liberty and state’s rights, but they continue to support the limitation of women’s reproductive choices and the regulation state’s marriage laws, only an uneducated fool would not see the inherent hypocrisy of this

Good point!

Mr. Nedd, of course it is all about you. You are providing a data point and claim that the interpretation is self evident. However, you offer no statistical analysis about the relevance of the point. You do not provide any correlation analysis and you expect us to make some inference that education level is directly correlated to the results of the Presidential election. Your data point about education levels is as valid as predicting the winner of the election based on the results of the Washington Redskins game the weekend before the election as reported in the news media last Monday. (ie they lose the…the incumbent looses)

I also get that you are trying to needle those of us that voted for Romney. Its ok. I am comfortable with my vote and my view.

Hookerman, I will remain true to my convictions and rise above the name calling. As an individual I believe that you are entitled to lead your life as you see fit. I respect your point of view. The beauty of this country is that we can peacefully coexist. But if you cannot find any balance in your life to recognize that I have a thought out point of view that is not in total agreement with yours but still worthy, then how can you expect our politicians in Trenton or Washington to reach any compromise or strike any balance.

Oh I don't care what your point of view is on the subjects I mentioned JP. What I care about is when you attempt to legislate your point of view, so that your point of view is forced on everyone else.

And BTW, I did not call you any name, so there is nothing for you to rise above.

JP,

You could not be more wrong. I made a point of simply posting the data without stating my "interpretation" so as to not make this discussion about what I think it means. I'm interested in what others think it means. You however have revealed your true motiviations of trying to make it about me.

I ran a regression analysis of the data using the % adults (25+) with undergrad degrees vs. the % of votes won by the President for each state.

The results are as follows:

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.732298248
R Squared 0.536260724
Adjusted R Squared 0.526796657
Standard Error 3.821524541
Observations 51

The most useful measure is R Squared, a statistical term saying how good one term is at predicting another. If R-Squared is 1.0 then given the value of one term, you can perfectly predict the value of another term. If R-Squared is 0.0, then knowing one term doesn't not help you know the other term at all. More generally, a higher value of R-Squared means that you can better predict one term from another.

The output of this analysis appears in the second PDF file posted.

Then I suggest you get off your duff, research the data (if it exists by state), and produce the charts you described.

Well...if you want to start cherry picking voters on video, please tell me which of these fine Americans would you nominate to become Rhodes Scholars?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY0M7IdNl7U

The same correlation holds true for each election going back to Clinton's in 1992. Sounds like a trend to me. Go to bed Greg.

You might want to look at an electoral map from 1992. Clinton won most of the states at the bottom of your list, including W. Va, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nevada & Tennessee. Kinda blows your theory that people in the "stupid states" only vote for Republicans.

Maybe it's time that you Woke Up.

P.S. Nate Silver called, he's revoking your "Silver Wanna-be" status and asked that you stop referencing his columns as you are an embarrassment to the industry.

P.P.S. Still not Greg.

That's your interpretation and your words. I simply presented the data. You predictably weighed in with your usual nonsense.

Still haven't acknowledged that you were completely wrong about the "trend" going back to '92, and, the fact of the matter is that one doesn't spend as much time as you did researching, performing a statistical analysis, building a table and posting an article without having a point. So stop being so disingenuous about why you wrote the article. It was to make a point.

As I stated above, I dont have to make the point, as the data speaks for itself. Even you get it!

Still not Greg. Not sure why you think he's the only person in the world who thinks you're a pompous a$#.

That's the only stat that matters. Not sure why you bother to post all the other meaningless "statistics."

Four years from now two completely different people will be on the ballot, the issues will change, and everything that you are crowing about today goes out the window. Rule #1 in Politics - Never fight the last war.

You should send your memo to House Republicans.

Cal,

Good job on the "data mining". My quick take away...your findings seem to refute Romney's claim of the President only appealing to the infamous 47%.

One interesting note from the RNC presentation - "Voters by a 15 point margin blamed President Bush over President Obama for the state of the economy."

Voters are not stupid in a way Mitt Romney was counting on.