In an issue of the New Yorker Magazine shortly after the "selection" of GWB by the Supremes was an article written by Nicholas Lehmann. He had interviewed Karl Rove about education of minorities, blacks and Hispanics and Karl told him that the goal was to educate, but not educate TOO MUCH, because then THEY WOULD VOTE DEMOCRATIC! I have posted this before.
Technology corridors were prime areas for grazing for Dem votes according to Donkey Rising writer Roy Texeira.
Gene Weingarten in the Washington Post had a humerous study done but was also factual...the more book stores an area had the more likely that areas votes would have gone to Gore.
Thats all very anecdotal tho..
For presidential elections at least, the exit polls are pretty clear about the nation-wide picture.
Both Kerry's and Gore's support was at its lowest among those with some college education and college graduates; and went up the lower
educated the voters were. Reaching a high among those who hadnt finished high school.
Again, the only exception is all the way at the top - postgrads were the exception by swinging clearly to Gore and Kerry again.
So how to explain your examples?
The Rove quote sounds a little dodgy to me.. but that's besides the question anyhow. The bottom line is that that's just one person's take. We're not talking about actual fact or verifiable data here, just about how Karl Rove sees things. And though he may be the evil political mastermind in residence, his opinions are still fallible. (Plus I wouldnt be surprised if Republican honchos end up believing the stuff they insinuate all the time, eg about how the Dems are a party of upper class intellectual eggheads and the Reps are down home ordinary folk).
The Texeira point about technology corridors doesnt necessarily say anything about how education and voting preference work out in general; tech corridors are quite specific localities. What they often have in common is that they involve a lot of qualified workers coming in from elsewhere, moving into the locale, and changing its political outlook. If the locale is conservative, then the influx of population from outside that comes with a burgeoning tech corridor will by definition turn the area bluer. But that seems more to do with in-migration than with educational change itself.
Mind you, I suppose that the relation between education and political preference differs significantly from region to region. Eg, in the US overall, low-educated people are more likely to vote Dem than upper-middle education folk - but I suppose it could well be the other way round in the South. Dont know. (The influence of education is probably overridden by that of race, anyhow.) Basically the effect of educational change depends on the local culture I'd suppose. In your average mining town, or city of car factories, the original political culture will be strongly to the left, and then if a new generation gets better education and white-collar jobs, the place will move to the right politically. But in your avarage Bible Belt rural area, the original political culture will be strongly to the right, and if a new generation then goes on to enjoy higher education and white-collar jobs, the place will move to the left.
Dont know how the Mississippi banks figure in.
But no, nationally speaking at least, despite what Karl Rove said according to a journalist, or what Texeira wrote about tech corridors, specifically, up to a point better education goes with a more Republican
-leaning vote. Equivalent to how those with less than avarage incomes in majority voted Kerry
, while those with average and higher than average incomes voted Bush.