> The NYT reports that Obama won Connecticut with the support of the
> young and the rich.
CT is kind of an exception. The highest income category is $200K or more. I wonder if Obama prevailed among those with the highest highest incomes. That wasn't the case in other states though. See below.
In CT as everywhere else, the young favored Obama over Hillary. But the older (not likely to be poorer) favored Hillary. Older (and white), not likely to be among the poorest in CT, Hillary.
Among whites 18-29 (8% of the voters), Obama dominated with 54% over Hillary's 45%. That's the young part. Older whites (not likely to be poorer) are a different story. Among 30-44 (17%), Hillary had 50%, Obama only 45%. Among whites 45-59 (31%), Hillary had 51%, Obama only 47%. Among whites 60 and older (26%), Hillary and Obama got same 49%.
But among the 65 or older category all races (18%), Hillary had 50% and Obama only 47%. The stats for Blacks are NA.
How about political alignment? Progressives (out of Iraq, universal health care, non-Lieberman fans) for Obama. Lieberman fans for Hillary. White Independents and Black Democrats overwhelmingly for Obama.
Consider a larger NW state, NY: Same basic pattern. Here we have stats for Blacks, 3:1 for Obama among the younger (more assertive?) generation. More modest among the older Black (53% for Obama, 47% for Hillary). All whites in the higher-earning-power age brackets, for Hillary over 2:1.
How about CA? Similar. Younger whites (up to 44) for Obama. Older whites (45 or older) for Hillary. White women for Hillary 55% to 44%.
Black Democrats 3:1 for Obama. All Latinos (29% of voters) 2:1 for Hillary. Latino Democrats (25% of all voters) 3:1 for Hillary. Why? Democratic political machine, name recognition are my conjectures. Hillary started to gain influence, but too late for the numbers to add up. Aside from working class Latinos, the super-rich ($200K or more) favored Hillary. Yes, the semi-rich from the coastal areas of CA went for Obama. Very similar in NY, another big state. A difference, Black Democrats were only 2:1 for Obama. Charles Rangel effect ("This is not a time to elect a rookie as president")? The NY "semi-rich" for Obama ($150-200K). The very rich (over $200K) for Hillary, in NY, over 2:1!
Much is made of the fact that the most educated preferred Obama. The punditry says that working-class Democrats favored Hillary. It's true that among the least educated, non-Blacks favored Hillary. But how are you rich if you have a bachelor's, master's or even a doctorate, but you're young.
Another important item is the increase in the number of primary voters. That is remarkable. I haven't checked the detailed stats on this, but if the percentage of young voters increased even a tiny little, that's very important. That means that their increase in participation was larger than that of the other age categories. In any case, we're talking about an significant increase in the political involvement of regular folks. It's not the kind of political motion that those who can cite Lenin and Trotsky by chapter and verse prefer to envision, but it is political motion of sorts.