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.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Since I posted on a really bad study that's outside of my area of expertise the other day, I thought I should make it up to you by posting on what I think is a good study by Gelman et al. that's also outside of my area of expertise today. Plus, with a title like "Rich state, poor state, red state,…
I don't know yet, but as soon as I do, I'll post that below.
With 98.5% of the delegates counted, Clinton won 57.9% of the vote, Sanders 42.1%. This puts Clinton at 139 delegates, very close to my prediction of 137.
Clinton closing in on 57%, or about 140 delegates.
If that holds, this is…
Donald Trump is now the presumed Republican candidate for President of the United States. Prior to Cruz and Kasich dropping out of the race, it was not 100% clear that Trump would achieve enough delegates to "lock" the convention, but he was vey close. I am not sure if Trump will be the only…
In the week since the New Hampshire voting, a number of people have become increasingly concerned about some of the things that they've seen in the results. Two things, in particular, have gotten a lot of attention. The first is the difference between the pre-election polling, which had Obama…
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.