Maybe education in this country is based mostly on statist precepts, hence the 'educated' people are more likely statists. The working people think less about political correctness and are more likely to just see it as it is, and not through statist eyes.

I think the establishment who never supported Trump during the election process, still dont support him. I always thought his major accomplishment would be to slow down the progress toward socialism, but not be very effective at all in stopping it. He is being blocked by the establishment at every turn, and all he can get through is what he can do by executive order. Obamacare is here to stay, although he would probably veto any attempt at medicare for everyone. Tax reforn wont pass the way he wants it, since it will give some relief to everyone, including the rich dudes and the corporations. He might get through the reduced tax for repatriation since that wouldl give a windfall to the government coffers. Decent tax reform coupled with matching spending reductions will never happen though.

If he just slows down socialism, thats all I ever expected from his presidency,. He isnt doing any successful re-education of the populace in the basis of free markets and individual responsibility

I dont generally believe anything I hear from the establishment. They have an ax to grind with their polls. They were wrong in teh 2016 election.

"They fall for the emotional rhetoric. "
For some reason this is an intriguing mystery to me. What you're saying makes sense, but couldn't the same thing be said about Clinton: emotional rhetoric aimed at providing things for the disaffected and unhappy, not a better future they make for themselves, but one delivered by a leader.

Maybe the difference is Trump offers simplistic villains as scapegoats. Maybe less educated people like the notion of problems coming from bad guys and more educated people like complicated plans. Clinton supposedly had detailed policy books on various issues.

BTW, this has been true for me. Even through college I thought if business leaders and politicians just made helping people and fixing the world's problems a priority, the problems would be solved easily. I used to think people who said the problems were complicated were just offering an excuse for not implementing a fix. I remember reading parts of a book when I was 25 that said if only gov't taxed a few percent more of everyone's income, all the problems would be solved. They added up the costs, and it all added up. That sounds laughable to me now. Once you actually try to run something simple, like a development project, a professional org, or church committee, you realize things not working is the normal state. "Who's the villain responsible for this project's failure?" People ask that question, but it's wrong. Maybe the Trump voters are more like me at age 20, having not run things, and imagining if I were in charge of a company, I would, like, totally make sure everyone got a living wage and we didn't harm the environment.

I call this an "intriguing mystery", but it's also sad. You can vote for candidates with arguments for gov't spending/intrusion geared toward the education or the uneducated, but you don't get any arguments for decreasing gov't.

Thanks. Good critical thinking and analysis.

You are talking about the military. These are people whose abilities at critical thinking are tested on the battlefields. The fact is that they understand the fallacies in President Trump's rhetoric.The educated leaders are the officer corps which self-identifies as conservative or Republican. See "Do You Know the Military" here in the Gulch: https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

They fall for the emotional rhetoric. They cannot analyze the claims. I do agree though that with Trump, as with any politician, the attraction is largely emotional in some way. I also see people (Republicans, mostly, but Democrats, also) who choose what the founders intended as "the better sort" of person. Donald Trump identifies those people as being of the "swamp." Trump appeals to the disaffected, the unhappy, who feel that they lost something that he will restore to them. This is not the promise of an undefined but better future that you make for yourself, but one that will be delivered to you by a leader. I look to Eric Hoffer's The True Believer.

"higher education is actually liberal indoctrination?"
Reason and liberalism are not a doctrine.

"Where professors can be openly Marxist but have to hide any interest in Rand?"
If that were true, would that make people have a positive view of President Trump? I try to imagine a thought experiment where most of the educated people in society, commissioned officers, executives, professionals, got an education that promoted Marxism. This is an absurd hypothetical to me; just a thought experiment. I can't imagine if that world would produce more or less support for Trump. I guess it depends on which brand of Marxism they indoctrinated. I could see it breaking either way.

"critical thinking" skills I see among the sheep who consider themselves "educated""
If that were true, would people with better critical thinking skills tend to support Trump. It sounds like you're saying in an uneducated state, people are split, but education in our society isn't very good. (This seems patently wrong, since people come to the US from around the world for education and research, but I'm going with it hypothetically.) If it were, you say, it would cause increased support of Trump. Why? I can't imagine how if my classes had been different in college I would vote for someone different.

Possibly because much of higher education is actually liberal indoctrination? Where professors can be openly Marxist but have to hide any interest in Rand? And, I have to tell you that the "critical thinking" skills I see among the sheep who consider themselves "educated" is pretty pitiful. It mostly consists of saying "baa" in the same direction the other sheep are facing.

I wonder why he's more popular among people who have less education or work in jobs requiring less critical thinking. I suspect the reason is Trump's public persona reminds them of people they know. In jobs requiring more education, you work with people who remind you of politicians like Obama, Kasich, Clinton, or Bush. I don't set out to vote for people I'd want to have a beer with at high-tech or chamber of commerce happy hour events, but maybe that's what I end up doing, primarily because I am not convinced that any of them start with policoes or philosophies. Maybe most people just vote for someone who seems like their parents or friends, and maybe that's not even as irrational as it sounds at first blush.

"His populist programs on trade and immigration set him against those who favor free enterprise."
On the contrary, Trump's proposals as advertised set him against those who pretend to favor free enterprise, but in fact favor more government and centralized looting by the non-productive. It remains to be seen what his proposals actually accomplish.