> What do generational differences in income have to do with "poor". Yes, I
> know, you used "poorer" -- but this is a flourish of rhetorical horse shittery.
In the U.S., age and income are positively correlated. In the 2000 census, the correlation coefficient is like .14 or so. Relatively large, considered the underlying differences in other demographic characteristics. I'm sure that's the case in CT as well. That's all I tried to say, telegraphically.
> These polls generally have a plus/minus margin of error of at least 3%.
>
> Hillary had 50%, Obama "only" 45%. Well, plus/minus 3 makes that Hillary
> with 47%, Obama with 48%. In which case, it's Hillary who had "only" 47%,
> while Obama practically "dominated" with 48%
The margin of error cuts both ways. You could as well say that, since the margin of error is 3%, then Hillary had 53% and Obama only 42%. But that's a funny way of reading sample averages and their distributions.
> Also, I realize you're not a Clinton fan, and I realize that her supporters
> call her Hillary. But is there some reason you find it useful to use her
> first name and not also his? (I don't want to make Max and Dennis feel like
> I think they are the only woman haters here, yanno?)
I do it to distinguish between her and Bill. Michelle Obama is much less well known.
> But, when you're talking education, the issue isn't generally income: it's
> about cultural capital. It's about aspirations and expectations. It's about
> identification with what people typically feel they can do with a degree.
> In other words, the graphic designer who makes 1/3 my salary next to me?
> Just out of college, he doesn't consider himself poor, even though he may
> be eating ramen and drinking tap instead of bottled. He doesn't consider
> himself poor because he didn't come from a poor background and he doesn't
> intend to stay at this entry level salary. (The economy may have something
> else in store, but that's another matter).
I don't disagree. My train of thought was this: The NYT reports that the young and rich gave Obama his victory in CT. There's no explicit question of wealth in the media syndicate's exit polls. So the variable they used was income. That's not my definition of class. But that's what's commonly used, and it's not absurd. That said, higher education does tend to lead to higher income. Yes, but that shows up in the 40s and 50s. Obama's support in those age categories was either lower or -- if you prefer -- at statistical par with Hillary's.