This is a serious question, so please, try to contribute honest reflection, not rox/sux.
[CAUTION: Poll number-crunching ahead!]
In most of the recent NY polls, Clinton beats Sanders overwhelmingly among 30-44 year olds. And that’s weird. Unlike other similar states (big, Democratic-dominated, diverse), the age cohorts in New York are not tracking in a linear manner, with Sanders winning the youngest and Clinton doing better and better as the population ages.
And for the life of me, I can’t figure out a good reason why. Just look at the CBS/YouGov poll out today. Top line is Clinton, second line Sanders, third undecided:
As a point of comparison, here’s the same section of the same poll also out today for a pretty similar state demographically, California:
California shows the same progression toward Clinton as the population ages we have seen in many other similar states as the contest has developed. But New York 30-44 year-olds, no. Why?
Well, I thought, maybe New York differs overall ideologically. But no!
New York:
And California:
The two states are ideologically identical.
Income level does not explain the discrepancy easily, as California is just about as wealthy per capita as New York, from millenials on up.
Neither gender nor ethnicity explain it either, as women and non-white voters poll pretty similarly in both NY and Cali for the moment. There may be an effect caused by the fact NY is closed and Cali is only semi-closed (this poll included among likely Democratic voters unaffiliated Californians, who are eligible). But that doesn’t seem likely in itself to explain one NY age cohort being so wacky, whereas the other three NY age cohorts follow familiar lines.
After scanning these two polls for a good while, I did come across one tantalizing nugget — the way voters responded to the question: “Do you think of your vote as mainly supporting...an individual candidate for President that you like [first line], a larger movement that you’re a part of [second line] or Both [third line]?”
Here’s how California Democratic voters responded, broken down by age:
And here’s New York:
Interesting. A large percentage of New York 30-44 year olds both say they like an individual candidate for President (and not a movement) AND say they will vote for Clinton.
We have no clue to what extent the two groups intersect, but given the nature of Sanders’s campaign, it is not unreasonable to suggest they do fairly heavily.
And if they do, it poses some interesting questions that I don’t have the answers to: What is it about Hillary Clinton the individual candidate that appeals to New York 30-44 year olds more heavily than to those in California? Why would New York 30-44 year olds be less drawn to movement insurgency politics than their fellows elsewhere?
Is it Hillary’s “New Yorker” cred? Do her ties to Wall Street play better among this group than to those outside the state?
Let me know if you have any theories. This is not just one poll: Hillary has consistently been hitting a far bigger share of NY 30-44 year olds than she does in other similar states.
Why?
Sunday, Apr 17, 2016 · 6:45:59 PM +00:00 · InteGritty
.
Many of the comments talk like everyone in NY works on Wall Street and loves Wall Street.
But that is simply not the case, and not good enough as an answer:
The 344,700 workers in the finance industry collect more than half of all the wages paid in Manhattan, although they hold fewer than one of every six jobs in the borough. The pay gap between them and the 1.5 million other workers in Manhattan continues to widen, causing some economists to worry about the city’s growing dependence on their extraordinary incomes. Those high salaries contribute to job growth, but most of this job growth occurs in lower-paying service jobs in restaurants, retail and home health care and not many jobs in highly paid areas