The Blue Devil wonders why Obama is raising more money than Clinton. One reason is that Obama supporters, on the whole, are significantly wealthier than Clinton supporters.
If you look at three big donor states, California, Massachusetts, and New York, on the whole, Obama has less support as you go down the income ladder. Wealthier people have more money to give, particularly since many mid-sized and small contributions are often 'impulse buys.' When you're treading water, you don't give to candidates on a whim.
This pattern also holds up in poorer states.
I'll leave it to you to figure out what this might or might not mean in terms of the general election because I don't have a clue.
More like this
No surprise that a reader points out that healthier areas seem to map onto "Blue" areas of the United States.
Africa is suffering through the global AIDS pandemic — tens of millions are infected with HIV.
Earlier this week Andrew Gelman suggested that it looks like Barack Obama's election had less to do with "realignment" then an overall tilt in the electorate, which just managed to "tip" a few borderline states.
A report by the Education Department was just released showing that, as usual, the existing educational inequities are being rewarded and exaggerated with inequities in distribution of education funding;
I don't know if it shows anything in particular about the candidates. I remember polls in New Hampshire showing that a significant portion of people who voted for John McCain were opposed to the Iraq War, even though he had hosted around 100 town meetings where he defended the war and said that we should spend 100 years there is necessary for "victory" (whatever that means at this point).
It would be interesting to control for education level instead of income level. I suspect Obama may appeal to more well educated audiences.
As to what it means for the general election, probably not much. The Democrat who gets the nomination is probably going to inherit the support of the primary voting bloc regardless, which is a bit less than guaranteed for the Republicans at this point.
Uh, something got messed up in zee head there. There shouldn't be a "100" before town meetings.
Tyler,
I agree. One problem with polls is that they never release the raw data. I suspect many of the variables are highly correlated. I was wondering if this means that middle class and lower-middle class independents would be more likely to support Clinton than Obama.
What, I'm not rich. Yeah, I do have a college degree and have donated money to Obama. Anecdotal is the best form of evidence.
Frankly, most of Clinton's contributors are maxxed. She gets max donations, something like 10% of Obama's are.